selection of exercise intensity using perceptual cues

UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations

1-1-2000

Selection of exercise intensity using perceptual cues during Selection of exercise intensity using perceptual cues during

television distraction television distraction

Wendee Ellen Kukuwich University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/rtds

Repository Citation Repository Citation Kukuwich, Wendee Ellen, "Selection of exercise intensity using perceptual cues during television distraction" (2000). UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations. 1212. http://dx.doi.org/10.25669/rd9p-gol8

This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected].

http://library.unlv.edu/

http://library.unlv.edu/

https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/rtds

https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/rtds?utm_source=digitalscholarship.unlv.edu%2Frtds%2F1212&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://dx.doi.org/10.25669/rd9p-gol8

mailto:[email protected]

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of th is reproduction is dependen t upon the quality o f the copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA

800-521-0600

UMI'

R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.

SELECTION OF EXERCISE INTENSITY USING PERCEPTUAL CUES

DURING TELEVISION DISTRACTION

by

Wendee Ellen Knkuwich

Bachelor o f Science University o f Nevada, Las Vegas

1997

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment o f the requirements for the

Master of Science Degree Department o f Kinesiology (Exercise Physiology)

College of Health Sciences

Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas

December 2000


UMI Number: 1403085

UMIUMI Microform 1403085

Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Leaming Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

Bell & Howell Information and Leaming Company 300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346


Thesis ApprovalThe Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas

The Thesis prepared by

Wendee Ellen Kukuwlch

November 15____ , 2Q00

Entitled

Selection of Exercise Intensity Using Perceptual Cues During

Television Distraction __________________

is approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

____________ M aster o f S c ie n c e i n E x e r c is e P h y s io lo g y

Examination Committee Chair

Committee MemberExamii

^ f -f

ion Committee Member

Graduate College Faculty Representative

Examination Committee Chair

Dean o f the Graduate College

PR /IO I7-53/1-Ü O u


ABSTRACT

Selection of Exercise Intensity Using Perceptual Cues During Television Distraction

by

Wendee Ellen Knkuwich

Dr. John Mercer, Examination Committee Chair Assistant Professor o f Kinesiology University o f Nevada, Las Vegas

The selection o f exercise intensity during television distraction was studied in 20 highly-

fit males (VOapeak- 63.2 ± 10.7 ml-kg'^-min'*) between the ages o f 28 and 45 years. It was

hypothesized that the perception o f exercise intensity during cardiovascular exercise

would be influenced by an environmental distraction, such as watching television (TV).

A within-subjects design was used to compare heart rate (HR), stride fi-equency (SF), and

MET level responses recorded during 15 minutes o f exercise performed with and without

distraction. Seventeen o f the 20 subjects had a change in HR o f greater than 5 bpm

between conditions, with 9 subjects decreasing HR by 10 ± 4.9 bpm and 8 subjects

mcreasing HR by 9 ± 2.3 bpm during the television distraction condition. The direction

of response to treatment was not explained by fitness level or subject age, height or

weight. It is conjectured that subjects who reported a preference for exercising with TV

distraction increased HR and MET level compared to subjects who stated a preference for

exercising without TV distraction.

m


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................üi

LIST OF TA BLES..................................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................... vü

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.....................................................................................................vüi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1Purpose o f the S tudy ............................................................................................................ 5Limitations o f Study............................................................................................................. 6Definitions o f T erm s............................................................................................................6

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................. 9Physical Activity Importance............................................................................................. 10Exercise Prescription.......................................................................................................... 13Measuring Exercise Intensity............................................................................................. 16Measuring Perception........................................................................................................20Psychological and Environmental Inputs ....................................................................... 25Summary...............................................................................................................................31

CHAPTER 3 M ETHODS..................................................................................................... 34Subjects................................................................................................................................34Instrumentation................................................................................................................... 35M easurem ents..................................................................................................................... 36Procedures........................................................................................................................... 37Statistical Methods ............................................................................................................ 43

CHAPTER 4 RESU LTS.......................................................................................................44Presentation o f Mean Heart Rate (H R )............................................................................44Presentation o f Mean Stride Frequency (SF)...................................................................45Presentation o f Mean MET L evel.................................................................................... 46Statistical Analysis for an Order Effect............................................................................47Summary o f the Group Statistical Analysis..................................................................... 48

CHAPTERS DISCUSSION................................................................................................ 50Heart Rate Responses......................................................................................................... 50

IV


Higher HR Response to Environmental Distraction...................................................... 53Lower HR Response to Environmental Distraction........................................................56Effect o f Environmental Distraction.................................................................................57Summary.............................................................................................................................. 59Recommendations.............................................................................................................. 60Conclusion...........................................................................................................................61

APPENDICESA. Physical Characteristics o f Subjects........................................................................... 62B. Informed Consent........................................................................................................64C. Subject’s VO2 Max Test Results Handout............................................................... 68D. Borg’s Rating o f Perceived Exertion (RPE) Scale....................................................72E. Data Collection Sheets................................................................................................ 74F. Subjects Means, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors

Per Conditions.............................................................................................................. 77G. Paired-Sample t-tests for Means Per Conditions.................................................... 81H. Subjects Means, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors

Per Order o f T ria ls .......................................................................................................85I. Paired-Sample t-tests for Means Per Trials..............................................................89J. Heart Rate Data Per M inute...................................................................................... 93K- Stride Frequency Per Minute..................................................................................... 97L. Subjects Speed and Grade Between Conditions and Trials................................. 100M. Individual D ata..........................................................................................................104N. Human Subject Approval.........................................................................................125

REFERENCES......................................................................................................................... 127

VITA......................................................................................................................................... 138


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Exercise Prescription F ac to rs...........................................................................14Table 2 Ratings o f Perceived Exertion (RPE) Scale .................................................. 19Table 3 Mean and Standard Deviation Values for Physical Characteristics

o f Subjects....................- ....................................................................................34Table 4 Bruce (1972) Graded Exercise Protocol..........................................................38Table 5 General Indications for Stopping an Exercise Test

in Low-Risk Adults ...... 39Table 6 Mean and Standard Deviations for Heart Rate (HR) Measurements

Obtained During Treadmill Walking With and W ithout Distraction........ 45Table 7 Mean and Standard Deviations for Stride Frequency (SF)

Obtained During Treadmill Walking With and W ithout D istraction 46Table 8 Mean and Standard Deviations for MET level

Obtained During Treadmill Walking With and W ithout Distraction........ 47Table 9 Summary o f Mean and Standard Deviations for

First and Second T rials-................................................................................... 48Table 10 Summary o f Mean and Standard Deviations for

With and Without D istraction......................................................................... 49Table 11 Comparisons Between Conditions for Subjects

Mean HR, MET level, amd S F ........................................................................ 51Table 12 Subgroup Characteristics.................................................................................. 59

VI


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Testing Setup O verview ...................................................................................41Figure 2 Range o f Heart Rate (HR) Differences Between Conditions...................... 49Figure 3 No Effect o f Environmental Distraction Between Conditions....................53Figure 4 Higher HR Response to Environmental Distraction

Between Conditions ........................................................................................55Figure 5 Lower HR Response to Environmental Distraction

Between Conditions.........................................................................................57

vu


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to so many wonderful people who have provided me the

encouragement, support, and confidence throughout this seemingly never-ending project.

To my mentor, committee, friends, and family, 1 owe you my sincerest gratitude for your

patience, understanding, and guidance.

1 am so fortunate to have had the opportunity to learn and grow from the

teachings o f my professors throughout the past years at UNLV. First, 1 would like to

express a sincere appreciation to my mentor Dr. John Mercer, whose time, patience, and

counsel were essential to the successful completion o f this study. 1 want to thank Dr.

Lawrence Golding for his knowledge and assistance during the conception o f this thesis

and for providing invaluable guidance throughout the development o f the methodology

section. 1 would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Richard Tandy, who has

provided me continual encouragement and support throughout my graduate and

undergraduate experience. 1 am also thankful to committee members Dr. John

Massengale and Dr. William Johnson, for their time and feedback.

To Dale Branks & Dave Black, thank you for sacrificing your time to assist me

with my data collection.

1 would also like to thank Wackenhut Services, Inc. for supporting my pilot study

and for being my place o f employment throughout my graduate career. 1 would Hke to

specially thank Ed Boldin, Teri Rogers, Mike Isaac, Carl Nichter, and Louise Keathley

vm


for their friendshç, support, and encouragement. To those who participated in this study

and/or the pilot study, your willingness and enthusiasm were very much appreciated.

I would also like to express gratitude to the Las Vegas Track Club for their

website which generated a wonderful response from people who participated in this

study.

To my loving parents and femily, whom I owe my deepest appreciation to for

your many prayers, support, and unconditional love that each one o f you have never

ceased to provide me throughout my entire life. Mom and Dad, thank you for always

being there for me, lifting me up, and for teaching me Philippians 4:13. With all my

love forever, I love you! xoxo... Wendee

‘Some people have entertained angels without knowing it. ” Hebrews 13:2

In Memory of: Violet Kyung Soon Kissenberger

IX


CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Over the past two decades, increasing public attention has been drawn to the vast

number o f health benefits associated with moderate physical exercise. The health

benefits derived fi-om participating in regular physical activity include a reduced risk of

diseases such as hypertension, high cholesterol, obesity, diabetes mellitus and coronary

heart disease (Bouchard, Shephard & Stephens, 1994). Physical activity has also been

noted as one o f the few successful modes o f rehabilitation after a nonfetal heart attack

(Oldridge, 1982). Studies show that physically active people have a lower mortality rate

compared to those who are sedentary (U.S. Department o f Health and Human Services,

1996). In addition, engaging in physical activity can provide several psychological

benefits. A number o f researchers have found that exercise tends to improve self-esteem

and self-confidence and is likely to reduce depression and anxiety (Plante & Rodin,

1990).

Despite the growing public awareness o f the health benefits associated with

exercise, only a smaU percentage o f people in the United States are exercising regularly

enough to attain significant health benefits. According to the United States Department

o f Health and Human Services (1996) and the American Heart Association (AHA)

(1998), 40 percent o f the American population is considered completely sedentary, while

only 15 percent or less are performing the proper amount of physical activity that is

1


recommended for achieving cardiovascular benefits. The recommendations for the

amount o f physical activity necessary to derive health benefits state that, “every adult

should accumulate 30 minutes or more o f moderate-intensity physical activity on most,

preferably all, days o f the week” (Pate et al., 1995). These recommendations have been

developed through extensive research from various national health organizations such as

the American College o f Sports Medicine (ACSM) and the National Center for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC).

According to the American Heart Association (1998), it is estimated that only

one-third o f those who begin an exercise program are still exercising by the end o f their

first year. The common excuses affecting the exercise dropout rate range from lack o f

time to categorizing exercise as a “boring” activity (Martin & Dubbert, 1982).

Behavioral research on physical activity reveals that the enjoyment o f the activity is a

common factor positively associated with adult physical exercise involvement (McAuley

& Rudolph, 1995). As a result, researchers realize that in order to increase adherence to

exercise, a greater understanding o f methods used to help motivate and encourage

individuals to attain a physically active lifestyle is required.

The potential for different types o f exercise programs or exercise environments to

influence exercise adherence and performance consumes a vast portion o f exercise

physiology and sport psychology literature (e.g., Boutcher & Trenske, 1990; Nielsen,

Savard, Richter, Hayoneaves & Saltin, 1990; Ceci & Hassmen, 1991; Kravitz, Robergs &

Heyward, 1996; White & Potteiger, 1996). Consequently, the techniques utilized to

encourage involvement in physical exercise are prerequisites for achieving the health

benefits associated with a physically active lifestyle.


Studies on adherence suggest that a person’s perception influences the creating

and maintaining o f an exercise habit (Dishman, 1987). Past research has indicated that

the alteration o f perceptual cues during physical exercise can increase compliance to

exercise regimens (Knapp, 1988) and may decrease the perception o f exercise intensity

(Pennebaker & Lightner, 1980; Robergs, Bereket & Knight, 1998).

Many studies have indicated that certain types o f distraction techniques, such as

listening to music or talking to a friend, can alter the extent to which internal stimuli,

such as feelings o f tiredness or boredom, are perceived during exercise (Nethery, Harmer

& Taafife, 1991; Pennebaker & Lightner, 1980; Rejeski, 1985; Russell & Weeks, 1994;

White & Potteiger, 1996). Many people manipulate the fijcus o f attention during

physical exercise by using distraction techniques or dissociation strategies in attempts to

maximize performance or to help “pass the time” and make the exercise seem easier

(Russell & Weeks, 1994). Many health club settings provide environmental distraction in

the form o f music and/or television as dissociation strategies to stimulate participants to

exercise.

Various dissociation strategies, which elicit a distraction away from the body,

have been found to in^jrove exercise tolerance (Morgan, Horstman, Cymerman& Stokes,

1983; Weinberg, Smith, Jackson & Gould, 1984). In a study examining the effects o f

background music during exercise, it was concluded that 99 out o f 114 joggers (87%)

reduced their perception o f exertion at a given intensity when exercising in the presence

o f music (Franklin, 1978).

It has been suggested that participant’s behavior during exercise may be better

imderstood by examining the role o f perceptual variables (Rejeski, 1981). Ultimately, the


decision to continue or to terminate exercise is governed by one’s perception o f exercise

intensity or “sense o f effort” as well as the individual’s physiological capacity (Morgan

& Pollock, 1977). A reliable method for linking a subject’s physiological exertion to the

perception o f effort during exercise is the Borg’s (1962) Ratings o f Perceived Exertion

(RPE) scale:

The use o f RPE allows a subjective quantification o f exercise intensity based on a

scale o f numbers in ascending order between 6 and 20 that corresponds to a

subject’s perception o f effort during exercise (Borg, 1962; Carlton & Rhodes,

1985; Dishman, Patton, Smith, Weinberg & Jackson, 1987; Karageorghis &

Terry, 1997; Morgan & Borg, 1976; Smutok, Skrinar & Pandolf 1980).

It has been observed that there is a positive linear correlation between RPE and heart rate

(Dishman et al. 1987; Eston & Williams, 1988; Morgan & Borg, 1976). Heart rate (HR)

is defined as the number o f times the heart beats per minute. Based on the RPE-HR

relationship, if a distraction technique is capable o f decreasing the perception o f intensity,

then it should be observed through the RPE response. The decrease in perception

hypothesis is based on the assumption that a distraction works by reducing the ability to

focus attention on other simultaneous stimuli (Pennebaker & Lightner, 1980).

Although many studies have concluded that listening to music during exercise is a

useful distraction technique that has been found to decrease the perception o f intensity

(Franklin, 1978; Karageorghis & Terry, 1997), it still remains unclear whether

environmental distraction, such as watching television, has beneficial effects on

physiological or psychological variables during exercise (Robergs et al., 1998; Hull &

Potteiger, 1999). According to a study performed by White and Potteiger (1996), visual-


type distraction was found to be ineffective in reducing perceived exertion as revealed by

subjects RPE responses. It was concluded that RPE was significantly higher for the

visual stimulated condition compared to the auditory or visual and auditory stimulated

conditions. Another study indicated that high action visual images might evoke a strong

emotional response that may heighten awareness o f emotional sensation (White &

Potteiger, 1996), therefore, increasing the perception o f exercise intensity. Overall, the

literature reveals that future research regarding the effects o f distraction during exercise

is needed (Robergs et al., 1998; Hull & Potteiger, 1999, Viteri, 1994; Pennebaker &

Lightner, 1980).

The popularity o f individuals watching television or a video while exercising has

become extremely prevalent in health clubs as well as in homes. Cardiovascular

machines, such as treadmills and stationary bicycles, are typically arranged to fece

televisions in an attenq)t to stimulate participants to exercise. Previous studies are

conflicting regarding the effects o f environmental distraction on perception o f exercise

intensity; therefore, it is not clear whether environmental distraction, such as watching

television during exercise, influences the perception o f exercise intensity.

Purpose o f the Study

The perception o f physical exertion has been extensively researched and reported

in various journals dedicated to the fields o f exercise science and physical fitness.

Previous studies have concluded that perception is an active process and that certain

types o f distraction may significantly alter the perception o f exertion (Robergs et al.,

1998; Hull & Potteiger, 1999; Pennebaker & Lightner, 1980; Russell & Weeks, 1994;


Nethery et aL, 1991; Rejeski, 1985; White & Potteiger, 1996; Franklin, 1978). However,

it is not presently clear whether or not environmental distraction affects the ability o f a

person to consistently select exercise intensity. The purpose o f this study was to

investigate if environmental distraction affects the selection o f exercise intensity while

walking on a treadmill It is hypothesized that the perception of exercise intensity during

cardiovascular exercise will be influenced by an environmental distraction, such as

watching television. The focal point o f this research will examine the influence o f

environmental distraction on the perception o f exercise intensity.

Limitations to the Study

Limitations in this study included;

1. Only 20 male subjects were tested within the range o f 28 to 45 years o f age.

2. AH subjects watched the same video during exercise with environmental

distraction.

3. The results o f the study cannot be generalized to videos o f other content.

4. Testing was completed within a controlled laboratory environment.

Definitions o f Terms

The following terms are used throughout the study:

Exercise prescription: An exercise schedule usually intended to increase physical fitness

or improve health, taking into account the person’s age and health status (Thomas,

et al. 1997). An exercise prescription is structured around the combination o f

fi-equency, duration, intensity, and type o f exercise (ACSM, 2000).


HRpeak: (HRpeak) the highest heart rate value observed during a maximal oxygen uptake

(VO2 max) test (Powers & Howley, 1996).

Intensity: a measure o f the effort ejq>erienced or required during exercise; usually

expressed as a metabolic equivalent (MET) level, ratings o f perceived exertion

(RPE), or a percentage o f V02peak or HRpeak (Howley & Franks, 1992).

Intensity threshold: a minimum level o f exercise intensity that elicits an adequate

stimulus for cardiorespiratory improvements (Howley & Franks, 1992).

Metabolic equivalent (MET): A unit used to estimate the metabolic cost o f physical

activity. One MET equals the amount o f energy expended during one minute o f

rest (1 MET = 3.5 milliliters per kilogram o f body weight per minute (ml kg"

•̂min"‘) (Thomas et aL, 1997). Multiples o f MET levels are used to express the

intensity o f physical exercise (ACSM, 2000).

Perception: The process o f receiving sensory impressions (Thomas et al. 1997).

Ratings o f perceived exertion (RPE): Borg’s RPE Scale contains values from 6 to 20

with verbal anchors ranging form ‘very, very light’ to ‘very, very hard’; it is a

subjective scale used to estimate and regulate exercise intensity (Borg, 1962).

Target heart rate (THRl: a heart rate goal recommended for a specific exercise intensity

level that is calculated by taking a percentage o f V02peak or HRpeak (ACSM,

2000).

VO? Max Test: a multistage exercise test performed on a treadmill, in which intensity o f

exercise increases progressively until the subject reaches a point o f exhaustion.

The highest measures o f VO2 and HR obtained during the test are used to describe


a person’s peak aerobic capacity; i.e. HRpeak and VOzpeak (Powers & Howley,

1996).

VO?peak: (VOzpeak) the highest capacity of o^grgen consumption by the body observed

during a VO2 Max Test (Powers & Howley, 1996).


CHAPTER n

LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose o f this study was to examine whether or not environmental

distraction affects a person’s perception o f exercise intensity. It is hypothesized that

environmental distraction reduces awareness o f internal sensory cues that affect

perception o f exercise intensity during exercise. Past research has indicated that changes

in perceptual cues may alter internal factors (physiological responses) as well as external

fectors (psychological responses) during exercise (Pennebaker & Lightner, 1980).

Furthermore, it has been suggested that aspects o f the environment may reinforce positive

behavior patterns during exercise (Knapp, 1988).

Manipulating the environment during exercise may influence a person’s exercise

behavior. Some people may be motivated to exercise at a higher intensity in a

stimulating environment compared to exercising in a sterile or boring environment.

However, manipulating the environmental may overly motivate or distract some people

and cause them to exercise at a level above their recommended intensity suited for then-

cardiovascular condition. I f this is the case, caution may need to be advised for certain

populations when exercising in a distractive environment.

Environmental distraction could also decrease exercise intensity, due to the

increased focus on the content o f the distraction, causing the individual to exercise below

the recommended level o f intensity for achieving health benefits. It is presently not clear


1 0

whether or not perception o f exercise intensity is affected by environmental distraction.

Therefore, research is needed to determine if perception o f exercise intensity is affected

by the use o f environmental distraction. Such research will aid practioners in developing

appropriate exercise routines.

This chapter addresses the importance o f physical exercise and provides insight

into the physiological and psychological factors that may influence the perception of

exercise intensity.

Physical Activity Inqjortance

The American Heart Association (1998) has classified physical inactivity as a

primary risk factor for coronaiy heart disease (CHD), comparable to smoking, elevated

cholesterol, and hypertension (Powers & Howley, 1996). Studies show that only 15 % o f

American adults participate in adequate amounts o f physical activity that include the

sufficient intensity and regularity to achieve health benefits (Department o f Health and

Human Services, 1996). Longitudinal studies concerning lifestyles and exercising habits,

provide evidence that physical activity results in a decreased risk o f coronary heart

disease and is also associated with lower rates o f all-cause mortality (Paffenbarger, Hyde,

Wing & Steinmetz, 1984). The Surgeon General’s Report on Physical Activity and

Health (U. S. Department o f Health and Human Services, 1996) states that participation

in physical activity can help prevent and delay the development o f a variety o f major

health problems. The specific benefits that may result fi-om exercise participation include

in:q>rovement in serum cholesterol levels, glucose tolerance, blood pressure, and body

fetness (Bouchard, Shephard & Stephens, 1994). In addition, being physically active can


11

also provide several psychological benefits such as improved confidence, well-being, and

emotional stability (Plante & Rodin, 1990). For example, exercise may ameliorate

depression that accompanies disability through rehabilitating the disorder, such as in a

cardiac rehabilitation, in which se lf confidence is restored through physical exertion

(Dishman, 1986). It is also hypothesized that physically active people see themselves

more positively compared to those who are inactive (Snyder & Sprehzer, 1974).

The term ‘physical activity’ has been defined as “any bodily movement produced

by skeletal muscles that results in energy expenditure” (Casperson, Powell &

Christenson, 1985). Although similar to physical activity, exercise has been defined as

“structured movement that is planned with the intent to improve or maintain fitness”

(Casperson et al., 1985). In this context, fitness is defined as the capacity to perform and

maintain a “moderate-to-vigorous” level o f physical activity without “undue fatigue.”

(Wilmore, 1988).

The recommended quantity and quality o f physical activity varies according to the

goal, whether it is for achieving health benefits or fitness-related goals (Pollock et al.,

1998). For enhancing health, the ACSM and the CDC have developed general

guidelines articulating the amount and type o f physical activity needed by American

adults:

Every U.S. adult should accumulate 30 minutes or more o f moderate-intensity (3-

6 METs) physical activity on most, preferably all, days o f the week. This

recommendation emphasizes the benefits o f moderate-intensity physical activity

and o f physical activity that can be accumulated in relatively short bouts. Adults


1 2

who engage in moderate-intensity, i.e., enough to expend approximately 200

calories per day-can expect many o f the health benefits.. .(Pate et al., 1995).

These recommendations are based on research findings which demonstrate that

“moderate intensity” exercise can protect against the development o f cardiovascular

disease by reducing several CHD risk fectors such as high blood pressure and diabetes

(Powell, Thompson, Casperson & Kendrick, 1987; Morris, Clayton, Everitt, Semmence

& Burgess, 1990).

The classification o f moderate intensity exercise is defined by a range o f

metabolic equivalents (3-6 METs) in which one MET is equal to the amount o f energy

expended while at rest (Powers & Howley, 1996; ACSM, 2000, Thomas, et al. 1997). By

classifying intensities by MET levels, it is possible to rank a wide range o f activities in

which a higher MET level is associated with higher intensity. M ET levels are commonly

used to communicate how hard exercise is above rest. For example, 3 METs is an

intensity level that is equivalent to three times harder than resting. Walking at a speed o f

3 to 4 mph is comparable to the recommended 3 to 6 MET range (Holly & Shafi&ath,

1998), as is gardening, dancing, housework, and raking leaves, if performed with the

same vigor as brisk walking (Pate et aL, 1995). Thus, activities and/or common tasks o f

daily living that are unstructured and enjoyable can be conducive to good health if

accumulated throughout the day at a moderate intensity (Debusk, Stenestrand, Sheehan &

Haskell, 1990).

The ACSM (2000) and the U. S. Department o f Health and Human Services

(1996) recommendations emphasize a daily energy expenditure o f approximately 200

calories per day. Literature suggests that the combination o f caloric expenditure and the


13

total duration o f exercise are associated with reducing CHD (Pate et al., 1995). It is

hypothesized that a caloric expenditure o f at least 1400 calories per week for most adults

is a suitable physical activity level for attaining health benefits (Pate et al., 1995). The

ACSM (1998) refers to the caloric expenditure goal as an “exercise dose continuum",

suggesting that there is a dose-response to participating in exercise and attaining health

benefits. Therefore, it is suggested that health benefits increase in proportion to the

increase in duration o f the activity performed, as measured in caloric expenditure (Pate et

al., 1995). However, the definition o f the optimal dose o f physical activity for adults is

still in question (Whaley & Kaminski, 1998). In conclusion, several health benefits, such

as a lower all-cause death rate, can be obtained through participation in a moderate-level

o f physical activity during most days o f the week (Pate et al., 1995). Because the

recommendations stress the importance o f caloric expenditure and the total amount o f

physical activity accumulated weekly, people have a greater flexibility in choosing

activities that fit into their daily schedule.

Exercise Prescription

For continual improvement in health and cardiorespiratory fitness, exercise needs

to be performed at an appropriate intensity on a consistent basis (Holly & ShafiBrath,

1998). The principle for inducing physiological improvements is referred to as overload

(Howley & Franks, 1992). The principle o f overload is based on challenging the body’s

physiological capacity beyond the minimum-threshold level during exercise (Howley &

Franks, 1992). I f the appropriate amount o f exercise is performed beyond the threshold


14

level, physiological adaptations occur such as increased transport and utilization o f

ojg^gen to the working muscles.

The benefits o f the appropriate level o f overload can improve the cardiovascular

system ability to utilize oxygen by means o f increasing capillary density and

mitochondria number (Powers & Howley, 1996). Overload involves the manipulation o f

frequency (the number o f exercise sessions), intensity (the speed, workload, or resistance

of exercise), dmation (the number o f minutes o f exercise) and mode o f exercise (the

selection o f a physical activity that uses large muscle group and can be sustained

continuously) (Pollock et al., 1998; Holly & Shafifrath, 1998). The interaction o f

frequency, intensity, duration and mode o f exercise provide the basic firamework fr»r

individual exercise prescription. An exanç)le o f an exercise prescription for

cardiovascular endurance (HoUy & Shafifrath, 1998) is illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1

Exercise Prescription Factors

Frequency:

Intensity:

Time:

Type:

Enjoyment:

3-5 days/week

50-85% o f VOzpeak or 60-90% o f HRpeak or RPE 12 to 16

20-60+ minutes

Aerobic (run, brisk walk, bike, swim)

Enjoyable aerobic activities


1 5

Cardiorespiratory improvements are a direct result o f an exercise prescription

performed with the proper quantity (frequency and duration) and quality (intensity) used

to elicit an overload (Holly & Shafifrath, 1998). According to the ACSM 1998 Position

Stand, it is suggested that in addition to mode o f exercise and frequency, exercise

intensity and duration play a significant role in prescribing exercise for the goals o f

maintaining and irrqtroving health. For example, total caloric expenditure during an

exercise session is directly determined by the combination o f intensity and duration.

The level o f exercise intensity is particularly important fr>r maintaining

cardiovascular fitness and exercise adherence (Hickson, Foster, Pollock, Galassi & Rich,

1985), since there is a narrow margin between an intensity level sufiBcient to produce a

training effect and a level that is too high that results in cessation o f participation

(Pollock et aL, 1984). Studies indicate that high-intensity exercise (> 90% o f HRpeak) is

associated with higher dropout rates from exercise programs (Pollock, 1988) and an

injury rate o f 50% (Kilbom et al., 1969).

In a study performed by Pollock et al. (1972) two groups o f middle-aged men

jogged at either 90 or 80% o f HRpeak for a 20-week period. The 90% group reported their

intensity to be difficult and the 80% group as moderate. Frequency o f training was the

same for both groups, but the 80% intensity group trained 4 to 5 minutes longer per

exercise session compared to the 90% intensity group. The additional minutes equalized

the caloric expenditure per training session for both groups and both groups showed

similar improvements in oxygen consumption. Therefore, it was suggested that intensity

be sufficient to ehcit and maintain a training effect but not so difficult that exercise

becomes a deterrent (Pollock et al,, 1972; Pollock, 1988).


16

Measuring Exercise Intensity

It is common to prescribe exercise intensities relative to maximal metabolic

parameters such as the highest level o f oxygen consumption (VOipeak) and/or heart rate

(HRpeak) obtained during a maximal effort VO2 Max test. For example, it has been

recommended that the general population exercise within the range o f 70 to 85% HRpeak

or 60 to 80% o f heart rate reserve (HRR) for the purpose o f improving health and

decreasing the risk o f chronic diseases (ACSM, 2000; Hellerstein & Franklin, 1978).

As o f today, the ACSM (2000) guidelines for prescribing exercise intensity

include a broad exercise intensity range o f 40% to 85% ofVOzpeak or 55-65% to 90% o f

HRpeak with emphasis on the lower limits o f intensity for the general population and the

upper limits for those who are already physically active (Holly & Shafifrath, 1998). Since

the higher range o f exercise intensity is contraindicated for the low-fit or overweight

individuals (Pollock, 1988), the intensity chosen within the range should not be so

extreme that it becomes a deterrent (Pollock, Wilmore, & Fox, 1984). Generally,

participating in activities o f an average exercise intensity o f 70% VOzpeak or 80% o f

HRpeak results in an overload and adaptation to the cardiovascular system in healthy

adults (Howley & Franks, 1992).

To obtain a range o f exercise intensities, the practitioner must first measure or

estimate VOzpeak and/or HRpeak- To measure VOzpeak and HRpeak, a VOz Max test is

performed to determine the individual’s highest peak value o f oxygen consunqjtion and

heart rate (Powers & Howley, 1996). A VOz Max test can be conducted during various

modes o f exercise using incremental increases in workload every few minutes until the

R eproduced with perm ission ot the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.

17

subject experiences physical symptoms that elicit the termination o f the test (Powers &

Howley, 1996). VOzpeak is considered the best indicator o f cardiorespiratory fitness, since

it involves measuring the working capacity o f the pulmonary, cardiovascular, and

muscular systems to transport and utilize oxygen (Smith & Mitchell, 1993).

Unfortunately, VOzpeak and HRpeak cannot always be easily measured due to the

lack o f equipment and/or the expense that is involved in administrating a VOz Max test

(Gettman, 1993). Therefore, an estimation o f HRpeak can be used to determine exercise

intensity based on the linear relationship between HR and VOz during cardiovascular

exercise (ACSM, 2000). An estimation o f HRpeak can be derived fi-om the following age-

predicted maximal HRpeak formula: 220-age = HRpeak (Karvonen & Vuorimaa, 1988).

However, research reveals that the estimated HR may vary ± 10 to 12 beats per minute

compared to the individual’s HRpeak obtained fi^om a maximal exercise test (Durstine &

Pate, 1988).

The Karvonen method, otherwise known as the HR reserve method (HRR), is also

used to predict HRpeak based on age and resting heart rate (Karvonen & Vuorimaa, 1988).

Karvonen’s method may estimate a percentage o f HRpeak more accurately because an

individual’s resting heart rate is used in the formula. However, like the percentage o f

HRpeak, the accuracy o f the Karvonen method may be compromised when the HRpeak is

derived fi'om the age-predicted formula rather than fi’om actual measurements o f VOzpeak

and HRpeak (ACSM, 2000).

HR can also be easily obtained through palpation o f the radial or carotid artery.

The HR is determined by multiplying the number o f pulse beats by the number o f second

intervals, which represent 1 minute. Hence, if 10 seconds are used to count pulse.


18

multiply the number by 6; if 30 seconds is used, multiple by 2, or a full 60 seconds can be

used to measure pulse (Holfy & Shaffiath, 1998). Accurate assessment o f pulse rate is

essential when monitoring exercise intensity. Inaccuracies in measuring pulse may arise

from not starting or ending the measurement in the correct time frame and/or improper

palpation location. Besides inaccurate^ measuring pulse rate, a variety o f fectors may

affect HR. The primary factors that alter the HR response during exercise include

environmental conditions that influence heat dissipation, emotional factors, consumption

o f medications, altitude, degree o f rest, and/or illness (HoUy & Shaffiath, 1998; Astrand

& Rodahl, 1986).

Since HR may be altered by several factors, the ACSM Guidelines for Exercise

Testing and Prescription (2000) suggest the use o f the RPE scale as a safe and practical

way to monitor exercise intensity. RPE is taught by associating the perception o f effort

during exercise with a particular rating and its assigned descriptive term on a numerical

scale as seen in Table 2 (Borg, 1982). For example, a low-intensity walk would be

assigned a lower number compared to a high-intensity run that would be assigned a

higher number on the scale. The RPE scale is linearly correlated with HR and the

amount o f oxygen (VOz) consumed during exercise (Borg, 1962). In other words,

typically as the exercise intensity increases, so does the RPE and HR responses. The

literature reveals that a selected RPE response o f 12-14, between “fairly light” and

“somewhat hard” on Borg’s 15-point scale, corresponds to 70%-85% o f HRpeak (Birk &

Birk, 1987; Chow & Wilmore, 1984; Pollock et al., 1998).


19

Table 2

Ratings o f Perceived Exertion Scale (RPE)

67 VERY, VERY LIGHT89 VERY LIGHT1011 FAIRLY LIGHT1213 SOMEWHAT HARD1415 HARD1617 VERY HARD1819 VERY, VERY HARD20

The advantage o f using RPE as a technique to monitor exercise intensity is that

adjustments to intensity can easily be made while exercising and there is no need to stop

exercising to measure HR (Borg, 1998). Since manual HR counting is often difficult to

perform accurately and can be distracting, RPE may be more effective and a safer method

for monitoring exercise intensity, especially for individuals taking medications that alter

the HR response.

Another approach to monitoring exercise intensity is the “talk test.” Generally,

guidelines for exercise prescription include instructions that individuals should be able to

breathe comfortably throughout the duration o f a physical activity (ACSM, 2000). The

talk test is a measure o f breathlessness and/or the inability to complete sentences during

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f t h e c o p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u r t h e r r e p r o d u c t io n p ro h ib i ted w ith o u t p e rm is s io n .

20

exercise which indicates that a person is exercising at too high o f an intensity (Holly &

Shaffiath, 1998).

Measuring Perception

The concept o f RPE is based on a subjective perception o f how strenuous a

physical task, such as exercising, feels to an individual. Some studies have defined

perception as a collective process o f what an individual perceives is occurring in their

physical and mental environments (Abemethy, Warm & Parks, 1998; Rejeski, 1985). In

an exercise setting, perception may dictate an individual’s decision-making process

regarding whether to increase or decrease exercise intensity, or when to completely cease

exercise (Morgan & PoUock, 1977).

An individual’s RPE during exercise encompasses an integration of various

physiological and psychological feelings from the musculoskeletal, cardiorespiratory and

sensory systems (Borg, 1998). The assessment o f the physiological sensations

contributing to RPE prompted the development o f a theory based on the ‘local’ and

‘central’ factors perceived during exercise (Elkblom & Goldbarg, 1971). Local factors

are defined as the physical feelings o f strain from the musculoskeletal system, whereas

central factors are defined as the feelings experienced from the cardiorespiratory system

(i.e., HR, VOz and respiratory rate (Elkblom & Goldbarg, 1971). One factor may

dominate the other depending on the type of exercise and level o f intensity (Robertson,

Gillespie, McCarthy & Rose, 1979; Pandolf Burse & Goldman, 1975).

Pandolf et al. (1975) found that the input o f local and central factors affecting

RPE is related to the type o f exercise. Specifically, Pandolf et al. (1975) reported that

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f t h e c o p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u r t h e r r e p r o d u c t io n p ro h ib i ted w i th o u t p e rm is s io n .

21

local fectors seem to dominate RPE for cycling, whereas, during the treadmill exercise,

central factors were more apparent in the RPE response. The findings suggest that

activities that rely on a higher percentage o f anaerobic work appear to be the primary

stnnulus for a higher local perception, whereas activities that induce a higher aerobic

work were found to be major determinants in a higher central perception.

Several studies have found that arm cranking exercises elicit a higher central

factor RPE than lower body exercises, such as cycling, performed at the same absolute

power output (Borg, Hassmen & Lagerstrom, 1987; Pandolf Billings, Drolet, Pimentai &

Sawka, 1984; Pivamik, Grafiier & Elkins, 1988). Pivamik and others (1988) found that

overall HR and RPE were significantly higher during arm cranking exercises compared to

exercise performed on a cycle ergometer at the same workload. It was suggested that

RPE response might be related to a greater percentage o f central foctors (VOzpœk) being

achieved during any workload, regardless o f the mode o f exercise (Pivamik et ai., 1988).

Based on physiological and psychological research, the concept o f the RPE scale

was developed as a technique to classify subjective feelings that contribute to human

perception o f exertion during exercise (Borg, 1998). Borg has defined subjective foehngs

that influence RPE as follows:

The overall perception o f exertion may be regarded as a gestalt or configuration

o f various sensations and feelings o f effort and stress due to physical work.

Peripheral sensations fi'om the muscles and joints and central sensations from the

cardiovascular system, etc., form together with previous experiences the

perception o f exertion. The intensity o f the perception and, also to some degree.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m is s io n o f t h e c o p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u r t h e r r e p r o d u c t io n p ro h ib i ted w i th o u t p e rm is s io n .

22

its quality may then vary depending upon how large muscle groups are involved

and how long the work has been performed (Borg & Noble, 1974; p. 150).

The Borg RPE scale is constructed specificalfy to be used as a linear function to describe

the relationship between perceived exertion and exercise intensity (Borg, 1962).

Therefore, perceptual responses are expected to mirror physiological responses according

to the design o f the RPE scale (Borg & Linderholm, 1970). The underlying assumption

o f the RPE scale is that regardless o f what a person’s physical capacities may be, in terms

o f VOzpeak Or HRpeak, the perceptual range between “no intensity” and “maximal

intensity” is equal among aU individuals (Noble & Robertson, 1996).

Several studies have validated the use o f RPE as a useful tool for quantifying and

regulating exercise intensity (Borg, 1972; Carlton & Rhodes, 1985; Dishman et al.,

1987). The application o f the RPE scale is extensively used in conditions where a given

exercise intensity is presented to an exerciser, such as during a VOz Max test, and then

the exerciser is asked to rate his/her perception o f effort. In order to investigate the

accuracy o f using an exercise intensity based on RPE, Glass, Knowlton and Becque

(1992) evaluated the reproduction o f a prescribed RPE value determined during a VOz

Max test. During the study. Glass et al. (1992) had subjects set the treadmill speed to

elicit the predetermined RPE without any knowledge o f the actual speed. The results

suggested that the subjects were successful in reproducing the prescribed RPE with no

differences in VOz obtained during the submaximal exercise session and the VOz that

corresponded to the recorded RPE during the VOz Max test. Therefore, it was concluded

that a subject’s perceptual responses, as recorded through RPE, may be used to accurately

prescribe exercise intensity (Glass et aL 1992).

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m is s io n o f t h e co p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u r t h e r r e p r o d u c t io n p ro h ib i ted w i th o u t p e rm is s io n .

23

Research suggests that using a RPE-production is safer method for exercise

prescr^tion conpared to HR prediction protocol because it makes no assumption o f the

subject’s physiological condition (Myles & Maclean, 1986). Additionally, in a study

performed by Eston, Davies and Williams (1987), RPE production methods were found

to accurately produce a given exercise intensity when compared to the actual VOzpeak and

HRpeak percentages. The study obtained RPE responses during a VOz Max test, and then

had subjects sequentially reproduce an RPE value o f 9, 13, and 17 on Borg’s (6-20) RPE

scale. Eston et al. (1987) found no difference between men and women at each

production RPE (9 = 49% VOzpeak; 13 = 70% VOzpeak: 17 = 90% VOzpeak)- The

researchers concluded that RPE is a reliable method o f measuring exercise intensity in

both the VOz Max test and during vigorous self-directed exercise.

Another study evaluated the reliabilities o f RPE values obtained during the Bruce

(1972) and Balke (1963) treadmill protocols (Whaley, Woodall, Kaminsky & Emmett,

1997). A comparison o f RPE values between protocols revealed a significant protocol

and gender effect at 40%, 60%, and 80% o f maximum heart rate. The study found that

the RPE value during the Balke protocol was significantly higher at each intensity

increment compared to the Bruce treadmill protocol. The RPE differences in protocols at

40%, 60%, and 80% HRpeak were 0.8, 1.6, and 1.7, respectively. The gender-main effect

was also statistically significant at each exercise intensity, with the males rating each

intensity higher compared to the female subjects (p < 0.01). It was concluded that the

duration o f the exercise test protocol and the fiequency o f RPE inquiries affected the

subject’s physiological and psychological perception during the test. Whaley et al.

(1997) noted that subjects typically receive instmctions indicating that as the exercise test

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f t h e c o p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u r t h e r r e p r o d u c t io n p ro h ib i te d w i th o u t p e rm is s io n .

24

progresses the workload intensity will progressively increase until physical exhaustion; as

a result, the subject may choose a higher RPE value due to the awareness o f the

increasing exercise intensity. Therefore, it was concluded that the frequency o f RPE

inquiries may affect the subject’s perceptual response.

Dwyer, Whaley and Kaminsky (1992) examined how the frequency o f RPE

inquiries affects the RPE-HR relationship. The purpose o f the study was to compare the

RPE responses between inquiries made once every three minutes and once every minute.

The researchers found that RPE responses were significantly higher when RPE inquires

were made each minute (p < 0.01). Consequently, the frequency o f RPE inquiry is likely

to influence the RPE responses given by the participant during exercise.

A variety o f informational factors, such as a subject’s knowledge o f RPE

increasing with higher levels o f workload, may affect perceptual behavior during exercise

as suggested by Nisbett & V alins (1971):

These are beliefe about the behavior itself (what was performed or with what

intensity) and the consequences o f the behavior (what were the environmental

factors- noise, distraction, temperature, etc). We propose that knowledge about

any one o f these elements - the behavior, its causes, its consequences, and feelings

about the object toward which the behavior was directed - can influence the

perception o f any o f the other (p. 71).

Also, it seems like there is a relationship between anticipated exercise duration and RPE

This is another example o f the multi-dimensional aspects o f perception. Rejeski and

Ribisl (1980) hypothesized that the perception o f duration wiU have an effect on RPE. In

their study, the RPE responses o f two groups were conpared as each group performed a


25

treadmill nm at 85% o f VOzpeak- The methodology consisted o f one group being told that

they would run for 30-minutes and the other group for 20-minutes. However, both

groups ran for the same amount o f minutes (20-min.) with only the one group

anticipating that they were going to run for 30-minutes. The results indicated that there

was no difference between groups in respiratory rate, HR, or ventilation rate, yet RPE

responses were lower in the group that anticipated the 30-minute run. The researchers

also indicated that during the last 5-minutes o f each condition the RPE response did not

differ between groups. Rejeski and Ribisl (1980) suggested that physiological factors

may have become increasingly noticeable during the last few minutes o f the exercise and

therefore, may have lessened the psychological factors. It has been hypothesized that

physiological factors may dominate psychological factors due to the variables of duration

and/or intensity during exercise (Morgan, 1973; Rejeski, 1981).

The literature suggests that psychological factors may have a greater influence on

RPE during low to moderate exercise intensities compared to high-intensity exercise in

which physiological cues (VOz, HR, and respiration rate) have a greater influence on

RPE (Rejeski, 1985; Rejeski & Ribisl, 1980). Consequently, as exercise increases in

duration and/or intensity, the relationship between physiological and psychological

influences may be inversely related and dependent upon individual personality and

environmental factors (Rejeski, 1985; Rejeski, 1981).

Psychological and Environmental Inputs

As the literature suggests, the perception o f how a person feels during exercise is

not solely a fimction o f physiological factors, but is comprised o f various psychological


26

factors that have an effect on human perception (Rejeski, 1985; Morgan, 1973; Borg &

Noble, 1974). Research has indicated that approximately 30% o f the variability in RPE is

due to psychological factors (Morgan, 1973). In a review o f RPE literature, Borg and

Noble (1974) noted that the integration o f psychological and physiological foctors that

contribute to RPE vary considerably based on exercise intensity and the environment in

which exercise is conducted.

Rejeski (1985), who has extensively investigated the nature o f perception,

suggests that perception during exercise is primarily an active process involving “focal

awareness.” Rejeski (1985) defines focal awareness as the “potential to pay attention to a

specific stimuli,” whereas perception is referred to as “all the processed material to which

one can attend” in the environment (p.373). Rejeski (1985) suggested that ‘focal

awareness’ is limited by the strength o f perceptual variables or by the individual’s

attention to a specific stimulus during exercise. Therefore, the use o f distraction during

exercise may provide enough external stimuli to influence one’s perception o f exercise

intensity. In addition, by occupying attentional capacity through strategies that focus

attention away fi-om internal sensations, the individual may perceive exercise to be easier

at a given intensity (Rejeski, 1985).

Pennebaker and Lightner (1980) hypothesized that attentional focus can be

increased or decreased by the processing o f psychological cues depending on the physical

environment. Specifically, they found that environmental factors that promote attentional

focus away fi-om the body can decrease perception o f exercise-induced fotigue

(Pennebaker & Lightner, 1980). In a study conducted by Pennebaker and Lightner

(1980), the results indicated that male and female subjects jogged fester on a scenic


27

cross-country course (9.17 minutes) conq)ared to jogging on a mimdane oval track (10.08

minutes) at the same distance (p < 0.01). Despite there being no difference in RPE

responses between the two conditions, a post-exercise questionnaire revealed that

subjects reported more satisfection, less boredom, and less frustration during the cross

country run compared to the track run. In conclusion, Pennebaker and Lightner (1980)

suggested that environmental distraction may decrease the amount o f physiological

attention and may promote performance satisfaction. These results also have relevance to

exercise compliance since individuals are more likely to continue exercising in an

environment that enhances participants’ interest (Knapp, 1988).

The interplay o f internal and external stimuli during exercise was also o f interest

to Russell and Weeks (1994) who examined whether manipulation o f attentional ft>cus

would affect exercise intensity within the same group o f subjects. In this study, seven

subjects were asked to cycle during three different conditions: a) a distraction condition,

in which cycling was performed while watching a videotape on waterfowl and

responding to a keyword each time it was presented on the tape; b) an associative

condition, in which the HR was viewed via a telemetric monitor mounted on the bike;

and c) a control condition, without manipulation o f the environment. Each condition was

performed at a constant intensity level corresponding to 75% o f HRpeak for the duration o f

60 minutes. The repeated-measures analysis o f variance indicated no effect o f condition

on RPE or HR. The RPE means for each condition were 12.8 ± 1 .7 for the control

condition, 13.1 ± 1.9 fo r the associative condition, and 13.7 ± 1 .8 for the distraction

condition. Therefore, it was concluded that the manipulation o f environment through the

use o f attentional strategies did not affect physiological efficiency or perception o f

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f t h e c o p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u r t h e r r e p r o d u c t io n p ro h ib i ted w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

28

exercise intensity as proposed by Morgan et aL (1983) as well as Pennebaker and

Lightner (1980). According to the researchers, the lack o f motivational content

associated with the distraction condition may have affected the outcome o f the study.

Therefore, further research is recommended to confirm the effects o f distraction on the

perception o f exercise intensity.

Robergs et al. (1998) conducted two studies to evaluate whether environment

distraction alters a person’s perception o f exercise (subjectively and quantitatively). In

the first study, 12 recreationally active male and female subjects completed 30-minutes o f

bicycle riding at a constant intensity o f 70% VOzpeak while watching: a) a cycling

videotape; b) a test pattern, otherwise known as a blank video, and c) no video. The

results yielded no differences in the measurements o f VOz, RPE, HR, or respiratory

exchange ratio among the three different conditions. However, there was a significant

time by condition interaction effect with responses to a post-exercise questionnaire

regarding mental attitude during exercise (p < 0.05). The post-hoc analyses indicated an

increase in positive mental attitude responses for subjects who exercised with distraction

compared to without distraction at 15, 25, and 35 minutes. In conclusion, regardless o f

the constant exercise intensity between conditions, the subjects responded more

positively to exercising with distraction compared to without distraction. The occurrence

o f psychological differences iu exercise at the same intensity is evidence supporting the

hypothesis that environmental distraction has an effect on an individual’s mental attitude

concerning exercise intensity.

Robergs et aL (1998) conducted a second study involving 12 male and female

subjects who participated in two randomized cycle conditions with and without


29

distraction. Each subject was able to freely select his or her own exercise intensity

without knowledge o f the equipment settings. The results indicated that an interaction o f

condition and time for exercise intensity was significant (p < 0.05). The single-effects

anafysis revealed a difference in exercise intensity across time during the distraction

condition (p < 0.05). Also, the measurements o f HR, VOz, and RPE were different

between the distraction and non-distraction conditions. The results o f Robergs et al.

(1998) second study indicated that distraction altered the perception o f exercise intensity

among subjects. Specifically, Robergs et al. (1998) suggested that exercising with

distraction, such as watching a video, may result in greater physiological adaptations

when exercising at a given RPE because o f the higher workload selected with the

presence o f distraction. On the other hand, Robergs et aL (1998) emphasized that the

alteration in perception o f intensity could lead to exercising at an intensity level that may

be detrimental for people who are instructed to follow a prescribed exercise intensity

protocol.

In a similar study, Hull and Potteiger (1999) examined the effects o f visual only

distraction on the ability to regulate exercise intensity via RPE during a 30-minute

treadmill run. The subjects consisted o f 10 trained females (VOzpeak- 52.7 ml-kg’ -̂min*̂ ).

The subjects first completed a VOzpeak test followed by a control condition and two

treatment conditions that involved exercising while watching a high-action or low-action

video without audio. The exercise intensity used during the treatment conditions was

based on a RPE response (target RPE) that corresponded to a blood-lactate concentration

of 2.5mmol/L that was obtained during the VOzpeak test. The results indicated that there

was no differences in blood-lactate concentration or RPE responses observed under the


30

three conditions (p > 0.05). The researchers concluded that trained females were able to

accurately monitor and regulate exercise intensity in the presence o f distraction using a

target RPE. Since there was no difference between exercise intensity selected, the

researchers hypothesized that the form o f distraction (high-action and low-action videos

without audio) might not have been a strong enough distraction to influence the

perception o f intensity. They recommended that future research be conducted with

distraction in the form o f self-selected or motivational videos.

In contrast to Hull & Potteiger (1999), Viteri (1994) reported that subjects chose a

lower exercise intensity level when cycling while watching television (distraction)

compared to cycling without television (no distraction). During the study, subjects

cycled at a self-selected intensity during both counterbalanced conditions. Throughout

each 30-minute condition, subjects were allowed to regulate exercise intensity by

changing their pedal rate to meet their comfort level. Exercise intensity was measured by

recording the distance traveled in kilometers per ever three minutes without the subject’s

knowledge o f the distance counter. The dependent variables were selected intensity or

“preferred intensity” (PIE), HR, RPE, and the assessment o f enjoyment felt while

exercising as defined by Rejeski’s (1985) Feeling Scale (FS). The results indicated no

significant differences for PEE, HR, RPE, or FS (p > 0.05) between with and without

distraction over time. However, the main effect analysis indicated that PIE when cycling

without distraction was higher (p < 0.05) compared to cycling with distraction. As a

result, the mean difference in selected intensity equated to a 5% decrease in energy

expenditure (kilocalorie per minute) when exercise was performed with distraction


31

conçared to without distraction. Therefore, these subjects were found to decrease their

exercise intensity in the presence o f distraction.

Despite the literature suggesting that paying attention to one source o f

information restricts the ability to attend to the other simultaneous distractions (Fillingim,

Roth & Haley, 1989; Pennebaker & Lightner, 1980), the results remain inconclusive

pertaining to the effects o f environmental distraction on the perception o f exercise

intensity. Conceivably, the different responses between the studies o f Hull and Potteiger

(1999), Robergs et al. (1998) and Viteri (1994) may be attributed to the type o f

environmental distraction or methodology employed. Nonetheless, further research is

needed to determine the effects o f distraction on the perception o f exercise intensity.

Summary

RPE has been used in conjunction with HR as a valuable tool for estimating

exercise intensity and prescribing exercise in both cardiac and non-cardiac participants

(Eston et al., 1987; Pollock et al., 1984; Borg, 1982). By examining a subject’s

perception o f intensity, practitioners may be able to better understand how environmental

distraction affects the RPE-HR relationship. Considering that the perception o f exercise

intensity can be affected by the interaction o f various physiological and psychological

factors, caution needs to be addressed specifically to populations who are required to

control their exercise intensity within certain prescribed physiological parameters.

The regulation o f exercise intensity is essential for inducing positive health

benefits as well as promoting adherence to exercise. The literature remains inconclusive

concerning the effects o f environmental distraction on exercise intensity. Findings


32

indicate that distraction techniques may influence RPE at moderate intensities, but not at

high intensities (Rejeski & Ribisl, 1980). Pennebaker & Lightner (1980) found that male

and female runners achieved foster times when focusing on external cues such as terrain

on a cross-country course con^ared to when focusing on internal cues such as breathing

rate during a track run. Additionally, Robergs et al. (1998) concluded that subjects

exercised at a significantly higher intensity while watching a video during cycling

compared to not watching a video during exercise. Conversely, the study performed by

Hull and Potteiger (1999) concluded female runners were able to accurately regulate

exercise intensity in the presence o f distraction. In addition, Viteri (1994) found that

females decreased their level o f self-selected exercise intensity by 6.2 kilocalories in the

presence o f distraction.

Further research regarding the implications o f environmental distraction on the

effects o f exercise intensity wül help clarify previous research and may aid practitioners

in developing safe and proper exercise prescriptions. To summarize, the following

statements pertaining to this study are supported by research:

1. Physical inactivity is a primary risk foctor for coronary heart disease.

2. Cardiorespiratory improvements are a result o f the quantity and quality o f

exercise.

3. The level o f exercise intensity is an essential factor for maintaining

cardiorespiratory fitness.

4. The concept o f RPE is based on a subjective perception o f how strenuous a

physical task, such as exercise, feels to an individual.


33

5. RPE comprises a variety o f psychological and physiological foctors that have

an affect on human perception.

6. Distraction may be a cognitive strategy useful for increasing exercise

adherence.

7. The choice o f an exercise intensity may or may not be affected by distraction.


CHAPTER m

METHODS

Subjects

The purpose o f this study was to investigate if environmental distraction affects

the selection o f exercise intensity while walking on a treadmill. The subjects consisted of

20 apparently healthy adult male volunteers, between the ages o f 28 and 45 years, from

the Las Vegas, Nevada population. The subjects' mean values for age, weight, height,

resting heart rate, and VOzpeak are presented in Table 3. Data for each subject is

presented in Appendix A.

Table 3

Mean and Standard Deviation Values For Phvsical Characteristics o f Subjects (N = 201

Mean Standard deviation

Age (yrs) 36.7 5.4

Mass (kg) 76.2 19.3

Height (cm) 175.8 2.3

Resting HR (bpm) 70 11.9

VOzpeak (ml kg'L min'i) 63.2 10.7

34


35

Prior to participating in the study, each subject completed a Physical Activity

Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q) to screen for signs and/or symptoms o f cardiovascular

disease (Appendix B). Subjects were also required to state the present use o f any

medications prior to testing. An informed consent, approved by the UNLV Institutional

Review Board, exp laining the procedures o f the study was provided and signed by each

subject in accordance with the University policy on the use o f human subjects (Appendix

B). The precise hypothesis o f the study was not disclosed to the subjects in order to

prevent confounding the results. Instead, the subjects were led to believe that the purpose

of the study was to assess physiological variables that occur during exercise.

Instrumentation

The testing took place in the UNLV Exercise Physiology Laboratory. The

apparatus used for the study included two types o f electrically driven treadmills: 1.) A

Quinton Model Q 5000 Treadmill, with a speed range o f 1.3 to 15 mph and a grade range

up to 40%, was used for the administration o f the VOz Max test; 2.) A Precor Model 9.4

Treadmill, with a speed range o f 1 to 10 mph and a grade range up to 12%, was used for

the submaximal conditions. During one o f the submaximal exercise conditions, a pre

recorded videotape o f the daily news was shown for 15 minutes on a television that was

placed within 5 feet o f the subject. The volume o f the television was adjusted to a level

which subjects felt was comfortable.


36

Measurements

The subjects’ body weight was recorded to the nearest pound using a laboratory

scale. The subjects’ height in centimeters was obtained by using a wall-mounted tape

measure. A Polar Beat heart rate (HR) monitor (Polar Electro Inc., Woodbury, NY) was

used to measure HR throughout the study including resting HR (RHR). The monitor was

secured across the subjects’ chest below the nipple line. The HR receiver was shielded

from the subject throughout the study to prevent biasing RPE. The highest obtained HR

during the VO2 Max test was considered to be the HRpeak-

A measure o f the subjects’ highest rate o f oxygen consumption (VOzpeak) was

obtained during a VO2 Max test using a portable TEEM 100 Metabolic Analysis System

(Medical Graphics Corporation, St. Paul, MN). Calibration o f the TEEM 100 MetaboHc

Analysis System was performed following the manufacturer’s guidelines. The

barometric pressure was measured with a wall-mounted barometer and the reading was

entered into the analysis system. The subjects’ age, weight, height, and gender were also

entered into the analysis system. Expired airflow was measured by using the high flow

pneumotach. Ventilatory and gas exchange responses were recorded every 20 seconds.

At the end o f the VO2 Max test, data was printed out and the milliliters o f oxygen

consumed per kilogram o f body weight per minute o f exercise were analyzed. The

highest value o f VO2 (ml kg'^ min'^) achieved during the test was defined as the highest

60-second averaged VO2 value (VOzpeak) coinciding with a respiratory exchange ratio

above 1.1.

Borg’s 6-20 point Ratings o f Perceived Exertion (RPE) scale (Borg, 1962) was

used to quantify RPE (Appendix D). The Borg RPE scale was also used during the


37

submaximal exercise conditions as a guide to reproduce the ̂ ecifîc exercise intensity

relating to an RPE o f 13 or the corresponding written descriptor o f “somewhat hard.” As

recommended by Borg and Ottoson (1986), all subjects first read the instructions

concerning the purpose o f RPE followed by verbal instructions on how to use RPE

(Appendix D).

Procedures

AH subjects reported to the laboratory on two days separated by a minimum o f 48

and a maximum o f 96 hours. The first day consisted o f familiarizing the subject with the

treadmill and completing a VOz Max test. On the second day, subjects performed two

separate conditions o f submaximal exercise and received an informative handout

concerning the VOzpeak and HRpeak results obtained during the VOz Max test (Appendix

C).

Prior to reporting to the lab, all subjects were instructed to follow the pre-testing

guidelines, set forth by ACSM (2000), which included the following:

1. Avoid consuming food, tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine for at least 2 to 3 hours

prior to testing.

2. Wear comfortable, loose fitting clothing appropriate for testing.

3. Refi-ain fi’om strenuous exercise within 24 hours of testing.

4. Drink plenty o f fluids over the 24-hour period preceding the test.

5. Get an adequate amount o f sleep (6 to 8 hours) the night before the test.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f t h e c o p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u r t h e r r e p r o d u c t io n p ro h ib i te d w i th o u t p e r m is s io n .

38

Testmg days were as follows:

Day One:

Prior to testing, resting measurements were obtained. The Bruce protocol (Bruce,

1972) was used to administer the VOz Max test. The protocol began with a walking

speed o f 1.7 mph at an incline of 10% and continued with increases in workload every

three minutes (Table 4).

Table 4

Bruce 11972) Graded Exercise Protocol

STAGE (3 min)

1

2

3

4

5

METS

5

7

9.5

13

16

SPEED (mph)

1.7

2.5

3.4

4.2

5.0

% GRADE

10

12

14

16

18

The test was conducted for the duration o f 10 to 17 minutes, depending on when

the subject reached a point o f exhaustion. ACSM’s General Indications for Stopping an

Exercise Test in Low-Risk Adults (ACSM, 2000) was used as criteria for terminating the

test (Table 5).


39

Table 5

General Indications for Stopping an Exercise Test in Low-Risk Adults

1 Onset o f angina or angina-like symptoms.

2 Significant drop (20mm Hg) in systolic blood pressure or a failure o f systolic BP to

rise with an increase in exercise intensity.

3 Excessive rise in BP: systolic pressure > 260 mm Hg or diastolic pressure > 1 1 5 mm

Hg.

4 Signs o f poor perfusion: light-headedness, confusion, nausea, cold or clammy skin.

5 Failure o f HR to increase with increased exercise intensity.

6 Noticeable change in heart rhythm.

7 Subject requests to stop.

8 Physical o r verbal manifestations o f severe fetigue.

9 Failure o f testing equipment.

With confirmation o f maximal effort, the highest VO2 obtained during the test was

recorded as the VOipeak. The achievement o f maximal effort was defined by meeting at

least two o f the four jfollowing criteria as suggested by ACSM (2000):

1. A feilure o f HR to increase with increases in workload.

2. A respiratory exchange ratio greater than 1.1.

3. An RPE greater than 17.


40

Before the administration o f the VO2 Max test, each subject was read the ACSM’s

standardized instructions concerning the use o f the RPE scale during exercise testing

(ACSM, 2000):

During the exercise test we want you to pay close attention to how hard you feel

the exercise work is. This feeling should reflect your total amount o f exertion and

fetigue, combining all sensations and feelings o f physical stress, effort, and

fatigue. Don’t concern yourself with any one factor such as leg pain, shortness o f

breath or exercise intensity, but try to concentrate on your total, inner feeling o f

exertion. Try not to underestimate or overestimate your feelings o f exertion; be as

accurate as you can (ACSM, 2000, p. 79).

The subjects were told that during the last 30 seconds o f every three minutes o f testing,

they would be shown an RPE scale and they would be asked to point at a number which

best described their overall feelings o f exertion (see Appendix D).

Following RPE instructions, the subjects were fitted with a Polar HR sensor belt,

as well as a mouthpiece connected to the TEEM 100 Metabolic Analysis System. The

subjects were allowed two to three minutes to familiarize themselves with breathing

through the flow meter and walking on the treadmill. During the test, RPE was recorded

in the last 30 seconds o f each stage followed by the subjects’ H R Immediately following

the termination o f the VO2 Max test, subjects were instructed to recover by walking at a

low-intensity for at least four minutes or until HR stabilized.

DavTwo:

The subjects returned to the laboratory on a second test day to perform two

separate submaximal exercise conditions o f walking for 15 minutes each at a self-directed


41

“somewhat hard” intensity, which corresponds to an RPE o f 13. The RPE o f 13 was

selected as a “target RPE” to be produced during the submaximal treadmill walking

conditions because it is within the 12 to 16 RPE range which reflects the recommended

intensity level suggested for healthy adults to achieve health benefits (ACSM, 2000;

Pollock et al., 1986).

The order o f conditions was counterbalanced among subjects. Condition one (C l)

consisted o f exercise during a quiet setting (i.e. no distraction). Condition (C2) consisted

of exercise during environmental distraction in the form o f watching a pre-recorded

version o f the daily news. The daily news was selected as the environmental distraction

since it is common to watch the news on a daily basis. The mode o f exercise chosen for

both conditions is walking because o f its practicality and relative low-health risk qualities

(ACSM, 2000). Both walking conditions took place on a treadmill that was arranged

inside a three-sided “pod” (Figure 1). An opaque cloth was used to conceal the TV

during C l.

Treadmill

Figure 1. Testing Setup Overview


42

Prior to beginning the first trial, RHR was recorded. The subjects were then

instructed to perform a 10 minute self-directed warm-up o f cardiovascular exercise and

stretching. After the warm-up, subjects rested for a minimum o f 5 minutes and a

maximum o f 10 minutes to allow the HR to recover within 10 beats of the pre-warm-up

H R

The exercise protocol was the same for both conditions, with the exception o f

watching television during C2. Upon beginning either condition, subjects were allowed a

5 minute intensity adjustment period to select a treadmill speed and grade combination

that they felt to be “somewhat hard” which is the verbal descriptor o f an RPE o f 13. The

RPE scale was in view during the adjustment period. The display panel on the Precor

Model 9.4 Treadmill was concealed from view during each submaximal condition. Prior

to the intensity being recorded, time warning were given at 1 ,2 ,3 , and 4.5 minutes

during each trial in order that final speed and grade adjustments could be made. After the

adjustment period, the final treadmill speed and grade selected by the subject was

recorded (Appendix E). Exercise was continued at the selected intensity for an additional

10 minutes. The complete condition lasted a total o f 15 minutes. During each minute,

the subjects’ HR was recorded. At 7 and 12 minutes, stride frequency was measured by

counting the number o f right foot contacts per minute. After completion o f the first

condition, the subjects rested for a minimum o f 10 and a maximum o f 20 minutes to

allow the HR to recover within 10 beats of the pre-exercise heart rate before the protocol

was repeated for the second trial. At the conclusion o f each condition, subjects were

asked to comment on the overall experience.


43

Statistical Methods

A within-subjects design was used to examine the dependent variables (HR, stride

frequency (SF), and MET level) during the submaximal exercise conditions. The

submaximal exercise conditions (independent variable) consisted o f two levels o f

treatment: treadmill walking performed with and without distraction. The research

hypothesis was that environmental distraction affects the perception o f exercise intensity.

Three paired-sample f-tests were used to examine the effect o f distraction on HR, MET

level, and stride frequency. The fohowing null hypotheses were tested:

1. There is no difference in HR between treadmill walking with and without

distraction.

2. There is no difference in MET level between treadmill walking with and

without distraction.

3. There is no difference in stride frequency between treadmill walking with and

without distraction.

The original alpha level was 0.05, however, because multiple f-tests were used in this

study, the Bonferroni adjustment to the alpha level was employed to protect the type 1

error rate. Therefore, the resulting alpha level was 0.017.


CHAPTER IV

RESULTS


the selection o f exercise intensity while walking on a treadmill. Therefore, the effect o f

environmental distraction on exercise intensity was observed through measuring HR, SF,

and MET level during treadmill walking. The results o f the statistical analysis used to

determine the mean differences for each dependent variable (HR, SF, and Met level)

between treadmill walking with and without distraction are presented in this chapter.

Presentation o f Mean Heart Rate (HR)

This section presents a comparison o f the mean EK. measurements recorded

during treadmill walking with and without distraction. A paired-sample t-test was used to

determine if there was a significant difference in KDR between conditions. The means

and standard deviations for HR, as measured during the two conditions are presented in

Table 6. The following data are presented in the Appendices: Appendix F, summary o f

condition means; Appendix G, tables for paired-sample f-tests between conditions;

Appendix H, order o f trial means summary; Appendix 1, tables for paired-san^le f-tests

between trials; Appendix J, HR data per minute; Appendix K, SF and MET level data;

Appendix L, speed and grade selections; and Appendix M, individual data.

44


45

Table 6

Mean and Standard Deviations for Heart Rate (HR) Measurements Obtained During

Treadmill Walking With and Without Distraction

HR HRWith Distraction Without Distraction

Subjects Mean (bpm)

Standard Deviation

134 135

16.5 17.3

Significance t = -0.535 (p = 0.299)

The mean HR measured during distraction was 134 ± 16.5 bpm, whereas the mean HR

without distraction was 135 ± 17.3 bpm. There was no significant difference between

mean HR during treadmill walking with and without distraction (t = -0.535; p > 0.017).

Therefore, the null hypothesis stating that there would be no difference in HR between

treadmill walking with and without distraction was retained.

Presentation o f Mean Stride Frequency (SF)

This section presents a comparison o f the mean SF value counted during treadmill

walking with and without distraction. The means and standard deviations in SF as

measured during the two conditions are presented in Table 7. The mean SF during

distraction was 64.3 ± 7.8 strides per minute, whereas the mean SF obtained without

distraction was 64.1 ± 6.8 strides per minute. Therefore, there was no significant


46

difference between mean SF obtained during treadmill walking with and without during

distraction (t = 0.377; p > 0.017). As a result, the null hypothesis stating that there would

be no difference in SF between treadmill walking with and without distraction was

retained.

Table 7

Mean and Standard Deviations for Stride Frequency tSFl Obtained During Treadmill

Walking With and Without Distraction

SF SFWith Distraction Without Distraction

SubjectsMean (strides per min.) 64.3 64.1

Standard Deviation 7.8 6.8

Significance t =0.377 (p = 0.355)

Presentation o f Mean MET Level

This section presents a comparison o f the mean MET level calculated during

treadmill walking with and without distraction. The means and standard deviations in

MET level as measured during the two conditions are presented in Table 8. The mean

MET level calculated during distraction was 7.7 ± 1 . 7 METs, whereas the mean MET

level without distraction was 7.8 ± 2 .1 . There was no significant difference between


47

mean MET level during treadmill walking with and without distraction (t = -0.640; p >

0.017). Consequently, the null hypothesis stating that there would be no difference in

MET level between treadmill walking with and without distraction was retained.

Table 8

and Without Distraction

MET Level MET Level

SubjectsWith Distraction Without Distraction

Mean 7.7 7.8

Standard Deviation 1.7 2.1

Significance t = -0.640 (p = 0.265)

Statistical Analysis for an Order Effect

A statistical analysis was also conducted to test for an order effect. Three paired-

sample t-tests were performed and revealed no significant difference in order o f trials

(p > 0.017) for aU dependent measures (HR, SF, and MET level) as seen in Table 9.


48

Table 9

Summary o f Mean and Standard Deviations for First and Second Trials

HR (bpm)

r Trial 2“* Trial

SF (strides/min)

r Trial Trial

METs

r Trial 2"“* Trial

Mean 133 136 63.9 64.4 7.6 7.8

SD 14.8 18.7 6.7 7.8 1.8 2

t stat t = -1.349 t = -0.963 t = -0.999

Significance: p = 0.097 p = 0.174 p = 0.165

Summary o f the Group Statistical Analysis

In conclusion, there was no treatment effect for any o f the variables analyzed

(Table 10). Based on the group results, it seems that environmental distraction did not

affect a person’s ability to select a consistent exercise intensity. However, inspection o f

individual subject data indicated direction of response to the independent variables was

not consistent between subjects across conditions. Consequently, a potential treatment

effect may have been masked by the group analysis. Since it appears that individuals

responded differently to the treatment, individual data was inspected between conditions.

The individual differences in HR between conditions for each subject are illustrated in

Figure 2, with subjects HR responses organized from greatest increase to greatest

decrease during environmental distraction.


49

Table 10

Summary o f Mean and Standard Deviations for With Distraction and Without Distraction

HR SF METs

Distract. No Distr. Distract. No Distr. Distract. No Distr.

Mean

SD

133.8

16.45

135.0

17.43

64.25

7.76

64.05

6.78

7.68

1.65

7.81

2.05

t stat

Significance:

t = -0.535

p = 0.299

t = 0.377

p = 0.355

t = -0.640

p = 0.265

HRbpm

15.0

10 . 0 -

5 . 0 -

0.0

- 5.0

- 10 . 0 -

- 15. 0 -

- 20. 0 -

- 25 . 0 -

4 2 11 6 1 1317 7 152 0 1 8 1 6 8 1914 5 10 9 3 12

Subject Number

Figure 2. Individual Subjects’ Range o f HR Differences Between Conditions


CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION


the selection o f exercise intensity while walking on a treadmill. The results o f the group

analysis indicated that subjects subjectively regulated exercise intensity similarly during

exercise with and without distraction. However, inspection o f individual subject data

suggests that the effect o f environmental distraction on exercise intensity, as quantified

by H R SF, and MET level, was not consistent between conditions (Table 11). Therefore,

this chapter wiU focus primarily on individual responses to environmental distraction.

Heart Rate Responses

The group analysis supports the hypothesis that there is no difference in KDR.

responses between treadmill walking with and without distraction. It seems reasonable to

expect the outcome o f HR to be similar between conditions since subjects were given

instructions to replicate a specific RPE. Since there was a possibility that the effect o f the

independent variable could increase, decrease, or have no effect on the dependent

variable, a criterion level o f 5 bpm difference between conditions was set. This was

considered an acceptable replication of HR since monitored exercise prescriptions expect

a varying HR range o f plus or minus 5 bpm (ACSM, 2000). Based on this criterion.

50


51

Table 11

and SF HR (bpm) MET level SF (strides per min)Subjects With Without Difference With Without Difference Without With Différence

1 121.5 114.0 7.5 6.1 5.9 0.3 63.5 61.0 2.5

2 144.2 132.3 11.9 6.1 5.5 0.6 51.0 51.5 -0.5

3 144.5 158.1 -13.5 10.0 11.3 -1.3 71.5 74.0 -2.5

4 153.0 140.6 12.4 9.0 8.7 0.3 66.0 64.5 1.5

5 139.3 149.4 -10.1 9.6 11.4 -1.8 64.0 64.5 -0.5

6 153.9 144.7 9.2 8.8 7.6 1.1 56.5 54.0 ■ 2.5

7 145.4 139.0 6.4 10.4 10.0 0.5 73.5 72.0 1.5

8 93.3 99.7 -6.5 6.4 6.5 -0.1 49.0 53.5 -4.5

9 136.6 147.1 -10.5 6.8 7.2 -0.4 65.0 65.5 -0.5

10 144.1 154.3 -10.2 8.3 8.0 0.3 60.0 62.5 -2.5

11 136.1 125.4 10.7 6.1 5.8 0.2 83.0 76.0 7.0

12 130.6 153.1 -22.5 7.2 9.4 -2.1 60.0 63.0 -3.0

13 131.3 124.2 7.1 7.9 6.5 1.4 61.5 62.0 -0.5

14 131.6 138.6 -7.0 10.2 10.7 -0.5 66.0 67.5 -1.5

15 154.7 151.0 3.7 5.5 5.5 0.0 70.0 69.5 0.5

16 136.3 142.3 -6.0 6.7 7.3 -0.6 66.0 67.0 -1.0

17 110.0 103.5 6.5 5.0 4.3 0.7 71.5 70.0 1.5

18 139.4 143.7 -4.4 8.3 9.4 -1.2 66.0 64.0 2.0

19 102.5 109.3 -6.8 6.7 6-7 0.0 62.0 62.0 0.0

20 128.2 129.9 -1.7 8.5 8.5 0.0 58.0 58.5 -0.5

Mean: 133.8 135.0 -1.2 7.7 7.8 -0.1 64.2 64.1 0.1

Std: 16.5 17.3 9.9 1.6 2.1 0.9 7.8 6.5 2.5


52

only 3 o f the 20 subjects (subject’s 15,18, and 19) were able to replicate their HR within

5 bpm between conditions (Figure 3). Therefore, 17 out o f the 20 subjects either

increased or decreased HR above 5 bpm between conditions. These results indicate that

environmental distraction may interfere with a subject’s ability to accurately regulate

exercise intensity using perceived exertion alone. In order to explain the differences in

HR between conditions, an examination o f HR directional responses to environmental

distraction was enq)loyed.

No Effect o f HR Response With Environmental Distraction

The methodology o f the present study required subjects to select a speed and

grade combination that would elicit a specific intensity level o f exertion based on

perceived exertion alone (RPE 13). Therefore, the subjects were expected to replicate the

prescribed level o f intensity during each condition. However, it was observed that only 3

out o f the 20 subjects replicated their intensity between conditions to induce a HR

response within 5 bpm (3 ± 1.1 bpm) as seen in Figure 3. These three subjects responses

agree with that o f Hull and Potteiger (1999) who found that environmental distraction

does not alter the ability to replicate a target RPE and/or HR. According to the Hull and

Potteiger (1999) study, highly fit women (means ± one standard deviation: VOipeak: 52.7

± 6.0 ml kg"'min'^) replicated their mean HR response (158 ± 3 bpm) between conditions

regardless o f environmental distraction. The three subjects in the present study who

replicated their HR between conditions were also highly fit (VOipeak- 61.43 ± 13.56

ml kg ' -min'^). Therefore, these findings would seem to support the contention that

highly fit subjects are unaffected by environmental distraction during exercise. However,


53

not all fit subjects demonstrated similar HR responses during exercise with and without

environmental.

5.0

EQ. 3.0 201.0c

8I

- 1.0

i -3 .0 O

-5 .0

Subjects' Number

• Subgroup (n = 3) average HR difference between conditions: 3 ± 1.1 bpm

• Subgroup Age (yrs): 35 ± 4.2 yrs.; VOzpeak: 61.4 ± 13.6 ml-kg“* min

Figure 3. No Effect o f Environmental Distraction: HR within 5 bpm

Higher HR Response to Environmental Distraction

The literature suggests that two-thirds o f the variance in selecting an exercise

intensity, as measured by HR response, can be explained physiologically. Therefore, it

has been hypothesized that the remaining one-third o f the variance in a chosen intensity

level for exercise is explained by perceptual responses (Morgan, 1973). It seems


54

reasonable to expect some changes between individual’s HR when perception o f exercise

intensity is interfered with the presence o f environmental distraction.

It was observed that 8 o f the 20 subjects (VOzpeak: 60.12 ± 10.51 ml kg"'m in ')

increased their HR by an average o f 6.38% (9 ± 2.3 bpm) during the distraction condition

(Figure 4). These findings are in agreement with Robergs et al. (1998) who reported that

subjects exercising on a cycle ergometer selected a higher intensity during the condition

with environmental distraction compared to a non-distraction condition. As in the

present study, Robergs et al. (1998) allowed subjects to freely adjust their intensity

during both conditions. Robergs et aL (1998) suggested that exercising in the presence o f

environmental distraction might result in greater physiological adaptations since subjects

selected a higher workload. Specifically, Robergs et al. (1998) concluded that exercising

with environmental distraction may motivate subjects to exercise at a higher MET level

and therefr>re, attain their training HR.

It seems reasonable to expect that the increased HR could be explained by

changes in MET level, as calculated from the speed and grade combination selected by

each subject during each condition (Appendix L). Based on the results o f the present

study, for the group o f subjects who had an increase in HR in response to the treatment,

the increased HR response was accompanied by a 8.75% increase in MET level (0.64 ±

0.39 METs) and a 3% increase in SF (2.81 strides/min.). In addition, some o f the

comments made by these subjects regarding the conditions included a preference for

exercising with distraction. These subjects also commonly stated that distraction, in the

form o f television or music, seems to make exercise easier, and time go by faster. These

types o f responses to environmental distraction seem to concur with the hypothesis


55

proposed by Pennebaker and Lightner (1980), who suggested environmental distraction

may increase attention away from the body and reduce sensory awareness leading to an

increase or decrease in performance depending on the individual’s perception of the

distraction.

14i12 -

DifFerences in j q - H R (bpm)

4-

Subjects' Number

• Subgroup (n = 8) average HR difference between conditions: 9 ± 2.3 bpm

• Subgroup Age (yrs): 37 ± 6.3; VOzpeak: 60.1 ± 10.5 ml-kg“‘*min

Figure 4. Higher HR Response with Distraction Between Conditions


56

Lower HR Response to Envrronmental Distraction

In contrast to the subjects that demonstrated an increased HR during

environmental distraction, 45% o f the subjects (VO2 peak: 65.54 ± 7.82 mlkg'^min'^)

exercised at a 7.89% (10.34 ± 4.9 bpm) lower HR, and a 7.19% lower MET level (0.72 ±

0.79 METS) with a 3% slower SF (1.56 strides/min) during distraction compared to

exercising without distraction (Figure 5). Some o f the direct quotes commonly stated by

these subjects included a preference for exercising without distraction. These subjects

also reported that the environmental distraction was annoying while trying to adjust their

speed and grade to the prescribed exercise intensity, indicating the possibility why

subjects may have worked harder without distraction. Furthermore, two o f the subjects

who selected a lower speed and grade combination during the distraction condition

reported not owning a television and admitted to rarely watching TV. One subject

(subject 19) had a lower HR (6.8 bpm) during the without distraction condition, despite

selecting the same speed and grade combination during both conditions. This subject had

specifically stated, “exercising without distraction was easier.”

The decreased HR response to exercise during environmental distraction agrees

with the findings o f Viteri (1994) who reported that subjects exercising on a cycle

ergometer chose a lower workload during environmental distraction compared to without

distraction. As in the present study, the conditions o f with and without distraction were

counterbalanced. The results indicated that a preferred higher intensity was selected

when subjects performed cycling without distraction compared to cycling with

environmental distraction. As a result, the mean difference in selected intensity equated


57

to a 5% decrease in energy expenditure (6.2 kcal/min) when exercise was performed with

environmental distraction compared to exercising without distraction.

0.0

-5.0-

- 10. 0 -Differences in H R (bpm) _i 5 Q-

- 20 . 0 -

-25.0

Subjects' Number

• Subgroup (n = 9) average HR difiference between conditions: 10 ± 4.9 bpm

• Subgroup Age (yrs) : 37 ± 4.3; V02peak: 65.5 ± 7.8 ml kg"^ min

Figure 5. Lower HR Response with Distraction Between Conditions

Efifect o f Environmental Distraction

Based on the results o f the present study, it is hypothesized that some subjects are

affected by environmental distraction such that they increase or decrease their intensity

level for a given RPE. It may be that these subjects have a preference to a type of


58

distraction or an inability to replicate intensity due to the level o f distraction during

exercise. It may be that distraction prevents these individuals from accurately identifying

an exercise intensity indicative o f an RPE o f 13. Therefore, these subjects may be

choosing a speed and grade combination that results in an exercise intensity level that is

above or below what is recommended for their individual exercise prescription.

The purpose for developing an exercise intensity prescription is to use HR, RPE,

or a MET level as a tool to ensure exercise is performed at a safe and appropriate

intensity consistent with increasing and maintaining health benefits (ACSM, 2000).

Since subjects relied on RPE as the only method to regulate exercise intensity and the

results show 17 out o f 20 subjects selected a different speed and grade combination

across conditions o f distraction, it is suggested that subjects use RPE in conjunction with

other physiological measurements o f intensity, such as HR and/or the talk test, in the

presence of environmental distraction.

It is possible that the difference between studies could be due to methodology

concerning the time frame o f data collection. For example, during the present study,

subjects exercised on the same day. In contrast, Viteri (1994) had subjects perform trials

over two consecutive days, whereas Robergs et al. (1998) had subject’s separate each

trial by one week. The status o f the subject’s psychological health could have presented a

possible confounding factor since it is likely that the subject’s mental state could have

changed in the days or week between data coUectioiL In the present study, subjects

performed both conditions on the same day with adequate rest between treatments in

attempt to avoid conflicting day-to-day psychological changes.


59

Summary

The purpose o f the study was to investigate if environmental distraction affects

the selection o f exercise intensity while walking on a treadmill. The results o f the group

analysis indicated that subjects regulated exercise intensity, as quantified by HR, MET

level, and SF, during exercise with and without distraction regardless o f order of

distraction. Conversely, inspection o f individual results indicated that 17 out o f the 20

subjects had increased or decreased HR above 5 bpm between conditions. Therefore, an

examination o f subject’s HR response between conditions was employed. The three

subgroups o f responses were no effect, higher HR response and lower HR response

durii% environmental distraction. Observation indicates differences in directional HR

responses were independent o f age, fitness level (V0 2 peak)> height, or weight:

Table 12

Subgroup Characteristics: In the Presence o f Environmental Distraction

Subjects No Effect

Subgroups

Increased HR Decreased HR

n=3 n=8 n=9

Age (yrs) 3 5 ± 4 .1 9 37 ± 6.3 37 ± 4.3

VÜ2 (ml-kg* ̂ m in') 61.4 ± 13.6 60.1 ± 10.5 65.5 ± 7.8

Height (cm) 179 ± 1.7 173 ± 2 .5 179 ± 1.3

Weight (kg) 74.7 ± 11 80.8 ± 27.5 72.6 ±6.1


60

It was also suggested that fitness status (i.e.: VOipeak) might contribute to the

likelihood o f exercising more intently with distraction compared to without distraction.

(Hull and Potteiger, 1999). Mihevic (1983) suggests that highly fit men and women are

more likely to demonstrate a greater sensitivity to changes in exercise intensity than then-

less fit peers. However, the results o f the present study suggest that regardless o f fitness

level, the high fit subjects in this study varied their selection o f exercise intensity via RPE

between conditions o f distraction.

To summarize, the results o f the present study combined with those of Robergs et

al. (1998), Viteri (1994) and Pennebaker & Lightner (1980) indicate that environmental

distraction alters the ability to precisely regulate exercise intensity based on a single RPE

prescription. These results suggest that the RPE-HR relationship is affected during

environmental distraction.

Recommendations

Be cautious when using perceptual cues as the only measurement tool for

intensity when exercising in the presence o f distraction. Since the objective for

developing an exercise prescription is to use RPE, HR, or a MET level as a tool to ensure

exercise is performed safely, it is suggested that two or more physiological measurements

be used in the presence o f distraction. Given that it is common to exercise with

environmental distraction in a health club or home setting, it is desirable to continue

research involving the effects o f environmental distraction on exercise intensity,

performance, adherence, and safety. In other words, various populations may benefit

fiom the use o f environmental distraction dining exercise while other populations


6 1

(i.e. cardiac rehabilitation patients) may need to be cautioned regarding the effect o f

environment distraction on selection o f exercise intensity when following an exercise

prescription that is recommended for their current health status.

In addition, ACSM (2000) recommends cardiac patients to exercise at a HRpeak o f

10 bpm below their HR-ischemic threshold, as myocardial ischemia has been identified

as a precursor to an increased risk for cardiac arrest during exercise. Therefore, since it is

essential for cardiac patients to exercise at a precise intensity that is conducive to safety

and effectiveness, it is imperative that subjects use RPE in conjunction with either HR

and/or the talk test in the presence o f environmental distraction.

It is also recommended that future research should consider comparing the effect

of environmental distraction on exercise intensity between various fitness level

populations (i.e. sedentary vs. high fit subjects).

Conclusion

It is concluded that the selection o f exercise intensity using perceptual cues is

affected during television distraction. It is also concluded that subjects who reported a

preference for watching television with exercise performed at a higher HR and MET

level compared to subjects who stated a preference for exercising without distraction.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m is s io n o f t h e c o p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u r t h e r r e p r o d u c t io n p ro h ib i te d w i th o u t p e r m is s io n .

APPENDIX A

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBJECTS

62


63

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MALE SUBJECTS

SubjectAge(yrs.) HT (cm) WT (kg)

RHR(bpm)

V02peak HRpeak (ml kg 'm in ') (bpm)

1 42 178 77 72 65.1 1802 28 183 152 85 38.6 1763 42 183 66 64 70.4 1744 31 170 66 56 73.2 1945 42 175 71 81 65.3 1746 32 183 66 98 62.2 2017 39 165 64 71 66.9 1758 37 183 87 67 67.2 1769 33 175 68 59 64.4 19710 41 175 76 90 50.9 19811 45 170 79 69 51.0 17212 42 175 74 69 58.7 17413 45 170 74 64 55.5 17414 33 183 71 74 77.2 18615 36 183 88 73 42.8 18416 33 178 73 65 67.9 19017 33 168 69 53 68.5 17218 39 180 76 56 66.8 18119 32 180 67 57 76.9 17820 29 173 61 79 74.7 190

Mean: 36.7 176.5 76 70 63.2 182

SD: 5.4 5.7 19.3 12 10.7 9.5


APPENDIX B

INFORMED CONSENT

PHYSICAL ACTIVITY READINESS QUESTIONNAIRE (PAR-Q)

64


65

University o f Nevada, Las Vegas Exercise Physiology Laboratory

Wendee Kissenberger, Research Assistant

Consent to Participate in a Research Study

Purpose: You are being asked to participate in a research study designed to assess physiological variables during exercise.

Subiects: Because you are an apparently healthy adult from the Las Vegas population, you are being asked to participate.

Procedures: First, you will perform a graded exercise test (GXT) to determine yourcardiorespiratory fitness level, which is a measure o f your heart’s ability to pump oxygen- rich blood to the exercising muscles. Peak oxygen uptake (V 02peak or V02m ax) is accepted as the standard measure o f cardiorespiratory fitness. The test usually lasts the duration o f 8-12 minutes, which includes walking and minimal running up a grade on a treadmill (TM ). To obtain the most accurate measure o f V 02peak , you are encouraged to exercise to a point o f voluntary exhaustion. The test can be terminated at any time you request or at the time abnormal responses occur. The tester may also terminate the test and/or i f you have reached a state o f voluntary exhaustion.

Your heart rate (HR) will be observed with a Polar HR monitor and you will be asked your rating o f perceived exertion (RPE) during the GXT. RPE is an estimation o f your feelings o f the intensity o f physical work. Periodically, a rating scale (below) will be shown to you and you will point at the number which best describes your feelings o f tiredness.

Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)67 VERY, VERY LIGHT89 VERY LIGHT1011 FAIRLY LIGHT1213 SOMEWHAT HARD1415 HARD1617 VERY HARD1819 VERY, VERY HARD20


66

Following a minimum o f 48 hours after completion o f the GXT, you will be asked to return to the lab to perform two 15-minute sessions o f treadmill walking within one hour on the same day. Both sessions will be separated with a rest period determined by your recovery HR. Each session will be performed at an intensity you will be able to select freely. All testing and sessions will be conducted in the UNLV Exercise Physiology Laboratory.

R isks; Anytime individuals exercise there is a potential risk. While exercising, there is always a risk o ftripping or falling. M uscle soreness and stiffness can occur even though you have been exercising regularly. Overexertion can result in nausea and/or fainting. Every effort will be made to monitor exercise intensity and to safeguard your health, although you agree to look to your personal physician for medical care and treatment. To your knowledge, you do not have a limiting physical condition or disability that would preclude you to participate in this study.

Benefits: The benefits o f exercise out-weigh the risks. You will have a chance to contribute to the body o f literature in the field o f exercise physiology and physical exertion.

C onfidentiality: Your name and personal identity will remain confidential. Statistical data collected will be coded. The results will only be recorded as averages and no names will be used.

Right to refuse or withdraw: You may refuse to participate in any part o f this study and you may change your mind about being in the study after the study has started. There is no penalty for exiting the study.

Q uestions: Any question you had about the study, its purpose, design, methodology, procedures, orsignificance have been answered to your satisfaction. I f you have additional questions about the study, the investigator (Wendee Kissenberger) will willingly answer them at 810-3142. I f you have questions pertaining to the rights o f research subjects, you may call the University o f Nevada, Las Vegas, Office o f Sponsored Programs, 895-1357.

Y our signature below indicates that you have decided to volunteer as a subject and that you have read the information provided and understand the study.

Date:Signature o f Participant

Date:Signature o f Witness

Print Participant name:_____________________________________________

Print Witness name:_____


67

Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire

Name ol participant Date_____________

PAR & YOUPAR-O is designed to tteip you help yourself. Many health benefits are associated with

regular exercise, and the completion ol PAR-Q is a sensible first step to take if you are planning to increase the amount of ptiysical activity in your fife.

For most people physical activity should not pose arty problem or Itazard. PAR-Q has been designed to identify the small number of adults for wtxxn ptiysical activity migtit be inappropriate or those who stiould liave medical advice concerning the type of activity most suitable for them.

Common sense is your best guice in answenng these lew questons. Please read them carefully ana check (. ) ti e Q YES orQ NO opposite the quesuon if it applies to you.

1. Has your qoaor ever said you have heart trouble?2. Do you frequently have pains in your heart and chest?3. Do you often feel faint or have spells of severe dizziness?4. Has a doctor ever said your blood pressure was too high?5. Has your doctor ever told you that you have a bone or joint problem

such as arthritis that has been aggravated by exertase or might be made worse with exercise?

6. Is there a good physical reason not mentioned here why you should not follow an activity program even if you wanted to? — -

7. Are you over age 65 ana not accustomed to vigorous exercise?

YES to one o r m ore questions NO to all questions

YES NQ

□ □□ □□ □□ a□ □

□ □

□ □

If you tiave not recently done so. consult with your personal physician by telephone or in person BEFORE increasing your physical activity and/or taking a fitness appraisal. Tell your physician what questions you answered YES to on PAR-Q or preeem your PARQ copy.

■program sAfter medical evaluation, seek advice from your ptiysiaan as to your suitability for

unrestricted physical activity staning off easily and progressing gradually; restnoed or supervised acavrty to meet your specific needs at least on an initial basis. Check in yox oomnxinity for sceoai programs or services.

If you answered PAR-Q accurately, you have reasonable assurance of your present suitability for

• A GRADUATED EXERCISE PROGRAM—a gradual increase in proper exercise promotes good fitness development while minimizing or eliminating discomfort

. A FITNESS APPRAISAL—Canadian Standardized Test of Fitness CCSTF).

IpostponeIf you hav# a tamporary minor illnasa, such as a common cold.

C e v e 'c c e a oy in e B n tiah Coiumoim M in is try o ( H c a n h . C o n o * o tu a li2 « d a n d c o m p a re d by W M bdiaooW nary A dvisory Board on & a m s « (M A 86). • » a r s ia tc o ra c rc d u c n o n an d u s a «n its a n tir try is e n c o u ra g a d . M odifications oy w rittan p e rm iss io n onry. N ot lo b e u s a d 1er c a n m a to a l ad v artis in g m

orce^ ÎO SQiicit O u a f ie s s irom cne p u b lic .^ e* * r» n ce p a b . q V alidation P c p o n B n iis n C o lu m b ia M inistry o r H ca ttn 1 9 7 3—o c u c e c c y tne Gr t isn C c iu m cia M in is try of H e a itn a n d T he O e p e n m e n t of N a tio n a l M eaitn a n d vvetfare


APPENDIX C

SUBJECT’S VO2 MAX TEST RESULTS HANDOUT

68


69

Subject’s VO2 Max Test Results Handout

(Subject’s Name) Peak VO2 ml/kg/min. at minutes.

Age: Weight: lbs. Height: inches

V0 2 Max is a measurement o f the highest value o f oxygen consumed by the body per minute during exercise. The attainment o f max VO2 requires integration o f the ventilatory, cardiovascular, and neuromuscular systems (Mitchell et al., 1958).Therefore, the V02Maxtest is a direct measure o f the muscle cells contracting and consuming oxygen during exercise.

When the test performance appears limited by local factors (such as leg fatigue) rather than central circulatory dynamics, the term peak VO2 is usually used. Peak VO2 refers to the highest value o f oxygen consumption measured during the test (McArdle, Katch and Katch, 1991).

80

70

_ 60

I 50O)^ 40 4

I 30

20

10

0

VO2 Max Test- (DATE)

Template

Ir i 1 — [ 1-------------;-------------r

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 13 14

Time

The Bruce (1972) protocol was used to administer the VO2 Max Test. Oxygen consumption was measured using a portable metabolic TEEM 100 analysis system with a manufacturer accuracy o f ± 2% o f reading.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m is s io n o f t h e c o p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u r t h e r r e p r o d u c t io n p ro h ib i te d w ith o u t p e rm is s io n .

(Subject’s Name) Peak HR

Age:________ Weight:

70

Subject’s Handout Part II

(bpm) at

lbs.

minutes.

Height: inches

Age-Predicted Maximum Heart Rate: (220-age) = ________ .The formula 220-age is a rough approximation o f the decline in maximal heart rate with age. Therefore, it is only an estimate and generally varies ±10 beats per minute at any given age-predicted heart rate (McArdle, Katch and Katch, 1991).

200 1

180

160 -

140 -

120

100 -

80 -

60

P eak H eart Rate (HR)

- Template -

0 3 6 9 12 12.5 13 13.5 14Time


71

Subject Handout Part III

Borg’s (6-20) RPE scale was used to approximate the HR values from rest to maximum. The RPE scores are commonly used as indicators of subjective efibrt and as a quantitative way to track a person's progress through the VOzwax Test.

R ating o f P e rc e iv e d E xertion (RPE)

UJQ.or

19 4

17 j

15 -

1 3 /

" !9- j

7 4s i

0

Template

6 9 12 12.5

M inutes

13 13.3


APPENDIX D

BORG’S RATINGS OF PERCEIVED EXERTION (RPE) SCALE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR BORG’S RPE SCALE

72


73


4505 Maryland Parkway Las Vegas, Nevada 89154

Ratings o f Perceived Exertion Scale (RPE)

67 VERY, VERY LIGHT89 VERY LIGHT1011 FAIRLY LIGHT1213 SOMEWHAT HARD1415 HARD1617 VERY HARD1819 VERY, VERY HARD20

Subject’s Instructions for using B org’s RPE Scale;

“During the exercise test, I want you to pay close attention to how hard you feel the exercise work is. This feeling should reflect your total amount o f exertion and fatigue, combining all sensations and feelings o f physical stress, efibrt, and fatigue. D on’t concern yourself with any one factor such as leg pain, shortness o f breath o r exercise intensity, but try to concentrate on your total, inner feeling of exertion. Try not to underestimate or overestimate your feelings o f exertion; be as accurate as you can” (ACSM, 2000, p. 79).

I will be asking you for your RPE throughout the duration of the VO2 Max Test. Specifically, I will provide you with the RPE scale at appropriate intervals (per stage) before I change the speed and grade setting during the test and you will be asked to point to the number that best represents your overall perception o f effort.


APPENDIX E

DATA COLLECTION SHEETS FOR:

V 02 MAX TEST

SUBMAXIMAL EXERCISE CONDITIONS

74




VO, Max Test Data Sheet

75

Date:

Name:

Age: _

Subject Phone #:.

Ht; Wt.

Directions:1. Informed Consent (explained, signed and date)2. Pre-testing guidelines3. Verbal explanation ofVO z Max Test: “the test usually lasts 8-15 minutes o f

progressively walking up an incline which may include minimal running up a grade. To obtain the most accurate measure o f your oxygen consumption, you are encouraged to exercise to a point o f voluntary exhaustion. The test can be terminated at any time you request. When you fee l that you ’re unable to continue; ju st grab a hold o f the railing and straddle the TM. Please remain breathing through the apparatus after you stopped test so that I can safely remove the analyzer. ”

4. What is a measure o f VO2 Peak: it is a measurement o f the highest value o f oxygen consumed by the body per minute during exercise; an indirect measure o f your body’s maximum capability to do work aerobically (a direct result o f muscle cells contracting and consuming oxygen). A high VO2 Peak is a characteristic o f great endurance perform ers such as runners & cyclists. ’’

5. Explain RPE. Perform calibration o f TEEM 100; enter information.

STAGE* METS SPEED,

mph

“/oGRADE RPE: HR:

I 5 1.7 10

2 7 2.5 12

3 9.5 3.4 14

4 13 4.2 16

5 16 5.0 18

STOP TEVIE:

Comments:

V O zp eak : HRpeak


76



DAY 2: Conditions Evaluation Sheet

Date:

Name:

Age: _

Subject Phone #:

Ht: Wt.

Directions:1. Counterbalance conditions, (either C l : No TV; C2: w/TV)2. Explanation o f self-directed warm-up: all subjects will be allowed to perform their own warm-up

& stretches prior to performing first condition.3. Remind subjects o f RPE purpose. During this session, 1 would like you to reproduce the RPE

value o f 13. You Mill have 5 minutes to adjust the concealed speed and grade settings to an appropriate level that you feel corresponds to a “somewhat hard" Intensity (RPE 13). Walking is the recommended mode o f exercise. ”

4. After a 5 minute intensity adjustment period, you will asked to maintain your selected intensity (walking) for 10 minutes.

5. HR will be monitored every 3 minutes during the condition. Stride fi"equency will be counted twice during the condition by counting the number o f strides per minute.

6. After completion o f the first condition, the subjects rested until their heart rate returned to at least 60% or less o f the estimated HRp^ ̂before the protocol was repeated for the second time.

No Television (C l): Follow steps 1-4. Exercise will take place without receiving any kind o f distraction in a controlled environment.

Television (C2): Follow steps 1-4. Exercise will take place while watching a pre-recorded daily news broadcasting.

1" Trial:__________Mph. & grade setting:

2"“ Trial:Mph. and grade:__

Min. H R M in. SL5 min. 7 min.

6min. ------------------- —

8 min. -------------------

9 min.10 min. —-—-—11 min. 12 min.

13 min -------------------------

14 min.15 min.Mean: Mean:Comments:

Min. H R M in. SL5 min. 7 min.

6 min. ------8 min. -------9 min. -------10 min. ------11 min. 12min.

13 min14 min.15 min.

------—

Mean: Mean:


APPENDIX F

SUBJECTS MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND STANDARD ERRORS PER

CONDITIONS FOR:

HEART RATE (HR)

STRIDE FREQUENCY (SF)

MET LEVEL

77

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n of t h e c o p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u r t h e r r e p r o d u c t io n p ro h ib i te d w i th o u t p e rm is s io n .

78

SUBJECTS MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, AND STANDARD ERROR

FOR HR (bpm) PER CONDITIONS:

With Distraction and Without Distraction

Subiects With Dist. W/O Dist1 121.5 114.02 144.2 132.33 144.5 158.14 153.0 140.65 139.3 149.46 153.9 144.77 145.4 139.08 93.3 99.79 136.6 147.110 144.1 154.311 136.1 125.412 130.6 153.113 131.3 124.214 131.6 138.615 154.7 151.016 136.3 142.317 110.0 103.518 139.4 143.719 102.5 109.320 128.2 129.9

Mean: 133.8 135.0

SD: 16.46 17.33

Std. Error: 3.68 3.88


79


FOR STRIDE FREQUENCY (SF) PER CONDITIONS:


Subiects: With Dist. W/OD:1 63.5 612 51 51.53 71.5 744 66 64.55 64 64.56 57 547 73.5 728 49 519 65 65.510 60 62.511 83 7612 60 6313 61.5 6214 66 67.515 70 7016 66 6717 72 7018 66 6419 62 6220 58 59

Mean: 64.25 64.05

SD: 7.76 6.78

Std. error: 1.74 1.52

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n of t h e c o p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u r t h e r r e p r o d u c t io n p ro h ib i te d w i th o u t p e r m is s io n .

80


FOR MET LEVEL PER CONDITIONS:


Subiects With Dist. W/O Dist1 6.14 5.872 6.10 5.513 10.00 11.274 9.02 8.725 9.58 11.406 8.76 7.627 10.44 9.958 6.42 6.549 6.82 7.2110 8.30 8.0211 6.07 5.8312 7.23 9.3613 7.91 6.5314 10.19 10.6815 5.48 5.4816 6.66 7.2617 4.98 4.2918 8.29 9.4419 6.67 6.6720 8.53 8.53

Mean: 7.68 7.81

SD: 1.65 2.05

Std. Error: 0.37 0.46


APPENDIX G

PAIRED-SAMPLE T-TESTS FOR MEANS PER CONDITIONS:

HEART RATE (HR)


MET LEVEL

81


82

PAIRED-SAMPLE /-TEST FOR HEART RATE (HR) MEANS

BETWEEN CONDITIONS

With Distraction Without Distraction

Mean 133.823 135.009Variance 270.968 300.251Observations 20 20Pearson Correlation 0.829Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 19t Stat -0.535P(T<=t) one-tail 0.299t Critical one-tad 1.729P(T<=t) two-tail 0.599t Critical two-tad 2.093


83

PAIRED-SAMPLE /-TEST FOR STRIDE FREQUENCY (SF) MEANS

BETWEEN CONDITIONS


Mean 64.250 64.050Variance 60.250 46.024Observations 20 20Pearson Correlation 0.956Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 19t Stat 0.377P(T<=t) one-tad 0.355t Critical one-tad 1.729P(T<=t) two-tad 0.710t Critical two-tad 2.093


84

PAIRED-SAMPLE /-TEST FOR MET LEVEL MEANS

BETWEEN CONDITIONS


Mean 7.679 7.810Variance 2.719 4.219Observations 20 20Pearson Correlation 0.902Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 19t Stat -0.640P(T<=t) one-tail 0.265t Critical one-tail 1.729P(T<=t) two-tail 0.530t Critical two-tail 2.093


APPENDIX H

SUBJECTS MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND STANDARD ERRORS PER

ORDER OF TRIAL FOR:

HEART RATE (HR)


MET LEVEL

85

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n of t h e c o p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u r t h e r r e p r o d u c t io n p ro h ib i te d w i th o u t p e r m is s io n .

86


FOR HR (bpm) PER ORDER OF TRIAL:

FIRST TRIAL and SECOND TRIAL

Subiects: 1 St Trial 2nd Trial1 121.5 114.02 132-3 144.23 144.5 158.14 140.6 153.05 139.3 149.46 144.7 153.97 145.4 139.08 99.7 93.39 136.6 147.110 144.1 154.311 125.4 136.112 153.1 130.613 131.3 124.214 131.6 138.615 151.0 154.716 136.3 142.317 103.5 110.018 139.4 143.719 109.3 102.520 129.9 128.2

Mean: 133.0 135.9

SD: 14.83 18.65

Std. Error: 3.32 4.17


87


FOR STRIDE FREQUENCY (SF) PER ORDER OF TRIAL:


Subiects: 1st Trial 2nd Tr1 63.5 612 51.5 513 71.5 744 64.5 665 64 64.56 54 577 73.5 728 51 499 65 65.510 60 62.511 76 8312 63 6013 61.5 6214 66 67.515 70 7016 66 6717 70 7218 66 6419 62 6220 59 58

Mean: 63.90 64.40

SD 6.70 7.83

Std. Error 1.50 1.75


88


FOR MET LEVEL PER ORDER OF TRIAL:


Subiects 1st Trial 2nd Trial1 6.14 5.872 5.51 6-103 10.00 11.274 8.72 9.025 9.58 11.406 7.62 8.767 10.44 9.958 6.54 6.429 6.82 7.2110 8.30 8.0211 5.83 6.0712 9.36 7.2313 7.91 6.5314 10.19 10.6815 5.48 5.4816 6.66 7.2617 4.29 4.9818 8.29 9.4419 6.67 6.6720 8.53 8.53

Mean: 7.64 7.84

SD: 1.77 1.95

Std. Error: 0.39 0.44


APPENDIX I

PAIRED-SAMPLE T-TESTS FOR MEANS PER TRIALS

HEART RATE (HR)


MET LEVEL

89


90

PAIRED-SAMPLE f-TEST FOR HEART RATE (HR) MEANS

BETWEEN HRST TRIAL AND SECOND TRIAL

1st Trial 2nd Trial

Mean 132.977 135.855Variance 219.921 347.682Observations 20 20Pearson Correlation 0.862Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 19t Stat -1.349P(T<=t) one-tail 0.097t Critical one-tail 1.729P(T<=t) two-tail 0.193t Critical two-tail 2.093


91

PAIRED-SAMPLE /-TEST FOR STRIDE FREQUENCY (SF) MEANS

BETWEEN FIRST TRIAL AND SECOND TRIAL

Ist Trial 2nd Trial

Mean 63-900 64.400Variance 44.911 61.253Observations 20 20Pearson Correlation 0.961Hypothesized Mean Difference 0d f 19t Stat -0.963P(T<=t) one-tail 0.174t Critical one-tail 1.729P(T<=t) two-tail 0.348t Critical two-tail 2.093


92

PAIRED-SAMPLE /-TEST FOR MET LEVEL MEANS

BETWEEN FIRST TRIAL AND SECOND TRIAL

1st Trial 2nd Trial

Mean 7.644 7.845Variance 3.120 3.805Observations 20 20Pearson Correlation 0.888Hypothesized Mean Difference 0d f 19t Stat -0.999P(T<=t) one-tail 0.165t Critical one-tail 1.729P(T<=t) two-tail 0.330t Critical two-tail 2.093

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e c o p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u r t h e r r e p r o d u c t io n p ro h ib i te d w i th o u t p e rm is s io n .

APPENDIX J

HEART RATE DATA PER MINUTE DURING:

CONDITIONS

FIRST TRIAL AND SECOND TRIAL

93


94

HEART RATE (HR) VALUES PER MINUTE WITH DISTRACTION

SUBJECTS (N=20)

HR Beats Per Minute (BPM)

MINUTES

10 11 12 13 14 15

C/D

IOQD03

12345678910 11 121314151617181920

Mean:

SD:

119 119 120 121 120 122 124 123 122 125 122

141 140 141 143 145 144 145 144 148 149 146

141 141 140 143 145 149 145 144 149 146 147

149 148 150 155 155 149 157 156 155 155 154

135 138 136 141 141 138 140 142 141 139 141

150 152 152 152 153 153 155 158 159 153 156

143 143 144 144 145 147 148 147 146 144 148

85 93 87 93 89 99 98 96 95 95 96

128 131 133 140 136 138 140 141 139 139 138

140 139 142 143 142 144 143 149 147 147 149

129 130 132 135 136 138 138 139 137 141 142

121 126 127 128 133 134 134 134 134 136 130

120 128 127 130 128 134 133 134 135 136 139

133 136 131 131 130 130 133 131 129 132 1 132

153 154 155 153 154 156 155 154 156 156 156

130 133 131 135 139 136 138 140 139 139 139

106 106 108 112 110 113 108 110 113 115 109

138 139 135 139 142 139 140 138 139 140 144

102 102 104 101 100 95 102 107 103 104 107

127 129 129 131 124 126 129 128 128 128 131

129.5 131.4 131.2 133.5 133.4 1342 ' 135.3 135.8 135.7 136.0 136.3

17.16 16.03 16.62 16.33 17.58 16.47 16.48 16.38 17.00 16.09 16.62


95

HEART RATE (HR) VALUES PER MINUTE: HRST TRIAL

SUBJECTS (N=20)


MINUTES

c/2HscdPc/2

12345678910 11 121314151617181920

Mean:

SD:

119 119 120 121 120 122 124 123 122 125 122

126 128 129 130 133 134 134 135 137 133 136

141 141 140 143 145 149 145 144 149 146 147

134 136 135 140 143 144 136 140 146 148 145

135 138 136 141 141 138 140 142 141 139 141

146 145 148 144 142 145 144 144 146 144 144

143 143 144 144 145 147 148 147 146 144 148

97 99 98 100 101 109 101 102 100 96 94

128 131 133 140 136 138 140 141 139 139 138

140 139 142 143 142 144 143 149 147 147 149

119 122 120 128 128 127 128 127 126 128 126

148 147 147 151 152 156 155 157 157 157 157

120 128 127 130 128 134 133 134 135 136 139

133 136 131 131 130 130 133 131 129 132 132

150 149 151 151 151 150 150 151 153 152 153

130 133 131 135 139 136 138 140 139 139 139

101 104 104 106 104 103 105 103 102 102 105

138 139 135 139 142 139 140 138 139 140 144

108 109 109 108 112 111 110 109 109 109 108

126 132 128 130 128 134 131 130 130 128 132

129.1 130.9 130.4 132.8 133.1 134.5 133.9 134.4 134.6 1342 135.0

14.97 14.01 14.41 14.39 14.48 14.21 14.47 15.25 16.05 16.10 16.60

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m is s io n o f t h e co p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u r t h e r r e p r o d u c t io n p ro h ib i te d w i th o u t p e rm is s io n .

96

HEART RATE (HR) VALUES PER MINUTE: SECOND TRIAL

SUBJECTS (N=20)


MINUTES

E—U£03

1

2345678910 11 121314151617181920

Mean:

SD:

112 116 115 114 112 116 117 115 108 112 117

141 140 141 143 145 144 145 144 148 149 146

152 153 154 156 159 158 160 160 162 163 162

149 148 150 155 155 149 157 156 155 155 154

146 149 151 150 151 149 148 146 152 150 151

150 152 152 152 153 153 155 158 159 153 156

136 133 137 138 139 137 143 139 143 141 143

85 93 87 93 89 99 98 96 95 95 96

141 142 144 149 149 150 148 147 148 149 151

138 149 145 152 155 156 159 158 160 164 161

129 130 132 135 136 138 i 138 139 137 141 142

121 126 127 128 133 134 134 134 134 136 130

123 118 120 125 125 125 126 126 126 126 126

138 132 136 137 140 141 142 141 142 139 137

153 154 155 153 154 156 155 154 156 156 156

135 136 141 142 144 140 144 145 148 147 143

106 106 108 112 110 113 108 110 113 115 109

136 141 143 143 142 145 146 146 146 146 147

102 102 104 101 100 95 102 107 103 104 107

127 129 129 131 124 126 129 128 128 128 131

131 132.45 133.55 135.45 135.8 136.2 137.7 137.45 138.2 138.5 138.25

18.25 17.79 18.55 18.36 19.86 18.50 18.82 18.44 19.97 19.39 18.95


APPENDIX K

STRIDE FREQUENCY PER MINUTE DURING:

CONDITIONS


97


98

STRIDE FREQUENCY (SF) PER MINUTE DURING

DISTRACTION AND WITHOUT DISTRACTION

SUBJECTS (N=20)

SF: Strides counted per minute every 5 minutes.


Subjects 7 min. 12 min 7 min 12 min

1 63 64 61 612 51 51 52 513 71 72 74 744 66 66 64 655 64 64 65 646 57 56 54 547 73 74 72 728 50 48 54 539 65 65 66 6510 60 60 62 6311 82 84 76 7612 60 60 63 6313 62 61 62 6214 66 66 67 6815 70 70 70 6916 66 66 67 6717 71 72 70 7018 66 66 64 6419 62 62 62 6220 58 58 59 58

Mean: 64.15 64.25 64.2 64.05

SD: 7.42 8.11 6.46 6.65

Std. Error: 14.34 14.37 14.36 14.32


99

STRIDE FREQUENCY (SF) PER MINUTE DURING


SUBJECTS (N=20)

SF: Strides counted per minute every 5 minutes.

First Trial Second Trial

Subjects 7 min. 12 min 7min 12 min1 63 64 61 612 52 51 51 513 71 72 74 744 64 65 66 665 64 64 65 646 54 54 57 567 73 74 72 728 54 53 50 489 65 65 66 6510 60 60 62 6311 76 76 82 8412 63 63 60 6013 62 61 62 6214 66 66 67 6815 70 69 70 7016 66 66 67 6717 70 70 71 7218 66 66 64 6419 62 62 62 6220 59 58 58 58

Mean: 64 63.95 64.35 64.35

SD: 6.30 6.64 7.56 8.11

Std. Error: 1.41 1.49 1.69 1.81


APPENDIX L

SUBJECT’S SPEED AND GRADE BETWEEN

CONDITIONS

TRIALS

ACSM’S METABOLIC CALCULATION FOR WALKING

100


101

SUBJECT’S SPEED AND GRADE SELECTIONS BETWEEN CONDITIONS

AND RESPONSE TO DISTRACTION


Subjects mph./ grade (%) mph./ grade (%) Response to DistractionI 3-9 @ 4% 3.7 @ 4% Increased2 3.2 @ 6% 3.1 @ 5% Increased3 4.2 @ 10% 4.5 @ 11% Decreased4 4.0 @ 9% 3.6 @ 10% Increased5 4.0 @ 10% 4.3 @ 12% Decreased6 3.4 @11% 3.3 @ 9% Increased7 3.9 @ 12% 3.7 @ 12% Increased8 2.7 @ 9 % 3.2 @ 7% Decreased9 4.0 @ 5 % 3.9 @ 6% Decreased10 3.2 @ 11% 3.5 @ 9% Increased11 4.3 @ 3% 4.1 @ 3% Increased12 3.6 @ 7% 3.9 @ 10% Decreased13 3.7 @ 8% 3.8 @ 5% Increased14 3.8 @ 12% 4.0 @ 12% Decreased15 4.3 @ 2% 4.3 @ 2% No change16 4.3 @ 4 % 4.3 @ 5% Decreased17 4.4 @ 1% 4.3 @ 0% Increased18 3.9 @ 8% 3.7 @ 11% Decreased19 3.9 @ 5 % 3.9 @ 5% No change20 3.3 @ 11% 3.3 @ 11% No change

s Response to Distraction:Increased : 9Decreased: 8Replicated: 3


102

SUBJECT’S SPEED AND GRADE SELECTION BETWEEN TRIALS

AND RESPONSE TO DISTRACTION

1st Trial 2nd Trial

Subjects mph./ grade (%) mph./ grade (%) Response to Distraction1 3.9 @ 4% 3.7 @ 4% Increased2 3.1@ 5% 3.2 @ 6% Increased3 4.2 @ 10% 4.5 @ 11% Decreased4 3.6 @ 10% 4.0 @ 9% Increased5 4.0 @ 10% 4.3 @ 12% Decreased6 3.3 @ 9% 3.4 @ 11% Increased7 3.9 @ 12% 3.7 @ 12% Increased8 3.2 @ 7% 2.7 @ 9% Decreased9 4.0 @ 5 % 3.9 @ 6% Decreased10 3.2 @ 11% 3.5 @ 9% Increased11 4.1 @ 3% 4.3 @ 3% Increased12 3.9 @ 10% 3.6 @ 7% Decreased13 3.7 @ 8% 3.8 @ 5% Increased14 3.8 @ 12% 4.0 @ 12% Decreased15 4.3 @ 2% 4.3 @ 2% No change16 4.3 @ 4 % 4.3 @ 5% Decreased17 4.3 @ 0% 4.4 @ 1% Increased18 3.9 @ 8% 3.7 @ 11% Decreased19 3.9 @ 5 % 3.9 @ 5% No change20 3.3 @ 11% 3.3 @ 11% No change

Subject’s Response to Distraction:Increased : 9Decreased: 8Replicated: 3


103

ACSM’s Metabolic Calculation fisr Treadmill Walking

V 02 = Resting + Horizontal + Vertical Components

Equation:

Resting: 3.5 ml (ml*kg‘ ̂min'^)

+ Horizontal: Speed (m/min) X 0.1 (ml-kg'^-min* m/min)

+ Vertical Grade (decimal) x speed (m/min) x 1.8

(ml kg" ̂min"^^ m/min


APPENDIX M

INDIVIDUAL DATA

104


1 0 5

Subject I:

Age:Height:Weight:V02peak:HRpeak:70% o f HRpeak: RHR:

42 yrs 178 cm 77.3 kg65.1 ml/kg/min 180 bpm.126 bpm.72 bpm.

Sneed Cmnh) Grade (%) MET levelTrial 1: With Distraction 3.9 4% 6.14Trial 2: Without Distraction 3.7 4% 5.87

HR (bpm) HR (bpm) Strides/min. Strides/min.Minutes: With Distraction Without Distraction SF fwithl SF f without!5 119 1126 119 1167 120 115 63 618 121 1149 120 11210 122 11611 124 11712 123 115 64 6113 122 10814 125 11215 122 117Mean: 121.5 114.0 63.5 61Std: 1.97 2.76 0.71

RHR7681


Age:Height:Weight:V02peak:HRpeak:

106

Subject 2:

28 yrs 183 cm 152.3 kg 38.6 ml/kg/min 176 bpm.

70% of HRpeak: 123.6 bpm. RHR: 85 bpm.

Speed /mph! GradeTrial 1: Without Distraction 3.1 5%Trial 2: With Distraction 3.2 6%

HR (bpm) HR (bpm) Strides/min.Minutes: Without Distraction With Distraction SF/with!5 126 1416 128 1407 129 141 528 130 1439 133 14510 134 14411 134 14512 135 144 5113 137 14814 133 14915 136 146Mean: 132.3 144.2 51.5Std: 3.52 2.86 0.71

MET level 5.51 6.1

Strides/min. SF /without!

RHR8794

51

51

51.0


107

Subjects:

Age:Height:Weight:V02peak:HRpeak:70% of HRpeak: RHR:

42 yrs 183 cm 66 kg70.4 ml/kg/min 174 bpm.121.8 bpm.64 bpm.

Sneed fmoh! Grade ( % ) MET levelTrial 1: With Distraction 4.2 10% 10Trial 2: Without Distraction 4.5 11% 11.27

HR (bpm) HR (bpm) Strides/min. Strides/min.Minutes: With Distraction Without Distraction SF /with) SF /without)5 141 1526 141 1547 140 153 71 748 143 1569 145 15910 149 15811 145 16012 144 160 72 7413 149 16214 146 16315 147 162Mean: 144.5 158.1 71.5 74.0Std: 3.11 3.83

RHR6478


108

Subject 4:


31 yrs 170 cm 65.5 kg73.4 ml/kg/min 194 bpm.135.8 bpm.56 bpm.

Sneed fmnh) Grade (%) MET levelTrial 1 : Without Distraction 3.1 10% 8.72Trial 2: With Distraction 4 9% 9.02

HR (bpm) HR (bpm) Strides/min. Strides/min.Minutes: Without Distraction With Distraction SF ('without') SF /with)5 134 1496 136 1487 135 150 64 668 140 1559 143 15510 144 14911 136 15712 140 156 65 6613 146 15514 148 15515 145 154Mean: 140.6 153.0 64.5 66.0Std: 4.88 3.29 0.71

6672


109

Subject 5:

Age: 42 yrsHeight: 175 cmWeight: 70.9 kgV02peak: 65.3 ml/kg/minHRpeak: 174 bpm.70% of HRpeak: 121.8 bpm. RHR: 81 bpm.

Sneed /mnh) Grade /%) MET levelTrial 1: With Distraction 4 10% 9.58Trial 2: Without Distraction 4 12% 11.4

HR (bpm) HR (bpm) Strides/min. Strides/min.Minutes: HR /With Distraction) HR /Without Distraction) SF /with) SF /without)5 135 1466 138 1497 136 151 64 658 141 1509 141 15110 138 14911 140 14812 142 146 64 6413 141 15214 139 15015 141 151Mean: 139.3 149.4 64.0 64.5Std: 2.28 2.01 0.71

RHR8787


110


Subject 6:

32 yrs 183 cm 66 kg62.2 ml/kg/min 201 bpm.

70% of HRpeak: 140.7 bpm.RHR; 98 bpm.

Trial 1: Trial2:

Without Distraction With Distraction

Speed (mph)3.33.4

Grade9%11%

MET level RHR 7.62 888.76 89

Minutes:5678910 11

12131415Mean:Std:

HR (bpm) HR (bpm)HR (Without Distraction) HR (With Distraction)

Strides/min. Strides/min. SF (without) SF (with)

146145148144 142145 144 144146 144 144 144.7 1.56

150152152152153 153155158159 153156 153.9 2.77

54 57

54

54

57

57

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m is s io n o f t h e c o p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u r t h e r r e p r o d u c t io n p ro h ib i te d w i th o u t p e rm is s io n .

I l l

Subject 7:



Sneed (mnh) Grade (%) MET levelTrial 1: With Distraction 3.9 12% 10.44Trial 2: Without Distraction 3.7 12% 9.95

HR (bpm) HR (bpm) Strides/min. Strides/min.Minutes: With Distraction Without Distraction SF (with) SF (without)5 143 1366 143 1337 144 137 73 728 144 1389 145 13910 147 13711 148 14312 147 139 74 7213 146 14314 144 14115 148 143Mean: 145.4 139.0 73.5 72.0Std: 1.91 3.26

RHR7669


112

Subject 8:



Sneed (mnh) Grade (%) MET levelTrial 1: Without Distraction 3.2 7% 6.54Trial 2: With Distraction 2.7 9% 6.42

HR (bpm) HR (bpm) Strides/min. Strides/min.Minutes: Without Distraction With Distraction SF (without) SF (with)5 97 856 99 937 98 87 54 508 100 939 101 8910 109 9911 101 9812 102 96 48 4813 100 9514 96 9515 94 96Mean: 99.7 93.3 51 49Std: 3.90 4.50

RHR6856


113

Subject 9:


33 yrs 175 cm 68 kg64.4 ml/kg/min 197 bpm.

70% o f HRpeak: 137.9 bpm.RHR; 59 bpm.

Speed (mnh) Grade (%) MET levelTrial 1: With Distraction 4 5% 6.82Trial 2: Without Distraction 3.9 6% 7.21

HR (bpm) HR (bpm) Strides/min. Strides/min.Minutes: With Distraction Without Distraction SF (with) SF (without)5 128 1416 131 1427 133 144 65 668 140 1499 136 14910 138 15011 140 14812 141 147 65 6513 139 14814 139 14915 138 151Mean: 136.6 147.1 65.0 65.5Std: 4.20 3.30 0.71

RHR6562


114

Subject 10:


41 yrs 175 cm 76.4 kg50.9 ml/kg/min198138.690

Sneed fmphl Grade f%) MET levelTrial 1: With Distraction 3.2 11% 8.3Trial 2: Without Distraction 3.5 9% 8.02

HR (bpm) HR (bpm) Strides/min. Strides/min.Minutes: With Distraction Without Distraction SF (with) SF fwithoutl5 140 1386 139 1497 142 145 60 628 143 1529 142 15510 144 15611 143 15912 149 158 60 6313 147 16014 147 16415 149 161Mean: 144.1 154.3 60.0 62.5Std: 3.45 7.72 0.71

RHR8287


1 1 5

Subject 11 :


45 yrs 170 cm 79 kg51 ml/kg/min. 172 bpm. 120.4 bpm.69 bpm.

Trial 1: Trial 2:

Speed (mnh) Grade (%)Without Distraction 4.1 3%With Distraction 4.3 3%

MET level RHR 5.83 676.07 78

Minutes:5678910 11

12131415Mean:Std:

HR (bpm) HR (bpm) Strides/min. Strides/min.Without Distraction With Distraction SF (without) SF (with)119 129122 130120 132 76 82128 135128 136127 138128 138127 139 76 84126 137128 141126 142125.4 136.1 76 833.38 4.25 1.41


116

Subject 12:



Speed (mph) Grade (%) MET level RHRTrial 1: Without Distraction 3.9 10% 9.36 82Trial 2: With Distraction 3.6 7% 7.23 85



117

Subject 13:


45 yrs 170 cm 73.6 kg 55.5 ml/kg/min 174 bpm.121.8 bpm.68 bpm.

Speed (moh) Grade (%) MET levelTrial 1: With Distraction 3.7 8% 7.91Trial 2: Without Distraction 3.8 5% 6.53

HR (bpm) HR (bpm) Strides/min. Strides/min.Minutes: With Distraction Without Distraction SF fwithl SF (withoufi5 120 1236 128 1187 127 120 62 628 130 1259 128 12510 134 12511 133 12612 134 126 61 6213 135 12614 136 12615 139 126Mean: 131.3 124.2 61.5 62Std: 5.31 2.75 0.71

RHR8685


118

Subject 14:



Speed (mph) Grade (%) MET levelTrial 1: With Distraction 3.8 12% 10.19Trial 2: Without Distraction 4 12% 10.68

HR (bpm) HR (bpm) Strides/min. Strides/min.Minutes: With Distractiohn Without Distraction SF (with! SF (without)5 133 1386 136 1327 131 136 66 678 131 1379 130 14010 130 14111 133 14212 131 141 66 6813 129 14214 132 13915 132 137Mean: 131.6 138.6 66 67.5Std: 1.91 3.04 0.71

RHR7887



119

Subject 15:

36 yrs183 cm 88 kg42.8 ml/kg/min184 bpm.

70% o f HRpeak: 128.8 bpm. RHR: 73 bpm.

Trial 1: Trial 2:

Speed (mph) GradeWithout Distraction 4.3 2%With Distraction 4.3 2%

MET level RHR5.48 645.48 63

Minutes:5678910 11 12131415Mean:Std:

HR (bpm) HR (bpm) Strides/min. Strides/min.Without Distraction With Distraction SF (without) SF (with)150149151 151 151150150151 153152153 151 1.26

153154155153154156155 154156 156 156 154.7 1.19

70

69

700.71

70

70

70


120

Subject 16:


33 yrs 178 cm 73 kg67.9 ml/kg/min 190 bpm.133 bpm.65 bpm.

Speed fmnh) Grade f%) MET levelTrial 1: With Distraction 4.3 4% 6.66Trial 2: Without Distraction 4.3 5% 7.26

HR (bpm) HR (bpm) Strides/min. Strides/min.Minutes: With Distraction Without Distraction SF (with) SF (without)5 130 1356 133 1367 131 141 66 678 135 1429 139 14410 136 14011 138 14412 140 145 66 6713 139 14814 139 14715 139 143Mean: 136.3 142.3 66 67Std: 3.55 4.10

RHR6876


121

Subject 17:



Trial 1: Trial 2:

Speed (moh) GradeWithout Distraction 4.3 0%With Distraction 4.4 1%

MET level RHR4.294.98

5552

Minutes:5678910 11 12131415Mean:Std:

HR (bpm) HR (bpm) Strides/min. Strides/min.Without Distraction With Distraction SF (without) SF (with)101104104106104 103105 103 102 102 105 103.5 1.51

106106108112110113108110113115109110.02.97

70

70

70

71

72

720.71

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m is s io n o f t h e c o p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u r t h e r r e p r o d u c t io n p ro h ib i te d w i th o u t p e rm is s io n .

122

Subject 18:


39 yrs180 cm 75.5 kg66.8 ml/kg/min181 bpm.126.7 bpm.56 bpm.

Speed (mph) Grade (%) MET levelTrial 1: With Distraction 3.9 8% 8.29Trial 2: Without Distraction 3.7 11% 9.44

HR (bpm) HR (bpm) Strides/min. Strides/min.Minutes: With Distraction Without Distraction SF (with) SF (without)5 138 1366 139 1417 135 143 66 648 139 1439 142 14210 139 14511 140 14612 138 146 66 6413 139 14614 140 14615 144 147Mean: 139.4 143.7 66 64Std: 2.29 3.23

RHR7868


123

Subject 19:


32 yrs 180 cm 67.3 kg76.9 ml/kg/min 178 bpm.

70% o f HRpeak: 124.6 bpm.RHR: 57 bpm.

Speed (mph) Grade (%) MET levelTrial 1: Without Distraction 3.9 5% 6.67Trial 2: With Distraction 3.9 5% 6.67


RHR5654


124

Subject 20:


29 yrs 173 cm 61kg74.7 ml/kg/min 190 bom.

70% of HRpeak: 133 bpm.RHR: 79 bpm.

Trial 1: Trial 2:

Speed (mph) Grade (%) MET level RHRWithout Distraction 3.3 11% 8.53 75With Distraction 3.3 11% 8.53 79

Minutes:5678910 11 12131415Mean:Std:

HR (bpm) HR (bpm) Strides/min. Strides/min.Without Distraction With Distraction SF (without) SF (with)126132128130 128 134131 130 130 128132 129.9 2.30

127 129 129 131 124 126 129128 128 128 131 128.2 2.04

59 58

58 58

58.50.71

58


APPENDIX N

HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL

125


126

U N I V L R S I T Y O F N E V A D A L A b V E G A S

DATE: September 18,2000

TO: Wendee E. KissenbergerKinesiology M/S 3034

FROM: Dr. Jack YoungChair, Biomedical Sciences Conunittee UNLV Institutional Review Board

RE: Status of Human Subject Protocol Entitled:"The Effect of Environmental Distraction on the Perception of Exercise Intensity”

OSP #504s0800-063

This memorandum is official notification that the Biomedical Sciences Committee of the Institutional Review Board has approved the above protocol. This protocol is approved for a period of one year from the date of this notification and work on the project may proceed.

Should the use of human subjects described in this protocol continue beyond a year from the date of this notification, it will be necessary to request an extension.

If you have any questions or require any assistance, please contact the Office of Sponsored Programs at 895-1357.

cc: OSP File

Office of Sponsored Programs 4505 Maryland Parkway • Box 451037 • Las Vegas. Nevada 89154-1037

(702) 895-1357 • FAX (702) 895-4242


REFERENCES

Abemethy, B., Wann, J., & Parks, S. (1998). Training perceptual-motor skills for

sport. In B. Elliot (Ed.), Training in sport: applying sport science (pp. 1-68). New York:

John V^ey & Sons.

ACSM’s Resource Manual fijr Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription.

(1998). (3"* ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

American College o f Sports Medicine (2000). Guidelines for Exercise Testing and

Prescription (6*** ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

American Heart Association. (1998). Heart and stroke facts and statistics. Dallas:

American Heart Association.

Astrand, P. O., & Rodahl, K. (1986). Textbook o f Work Physiology (3̂ ** ed.). New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Balke, B. (1963). A simple field test for assessment o f physical fitness. Civil

Aeromedical Research Institute Report. 63-66.

Birk, T. J., & Birk, C. A. (1987). Use o f ratings o f perceived exertion for exercise

prescription. Sports Medicine. 4. 1-8.

Borg, G. A. (1962). Physical performance and perceived exertion. Lund,

Sweden; Gleerup.

Borg, G. A. (1972). Perceived exertion: a note on “history” and methods.

Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 5. 90-93.

127


128

Borg, G. A. (1982). Psychological basis of physical exertion. Medicine and

Science in Sport and Exercise. 14. 377-381.

Borg, G. A. (1998). Borg’s perceived exertion and pain scales. Chanq)aign, 111:

Human Kinetics.

Borg, G. A., Hassmen, P., & Lagerstrom, N. (1987). Perceived exertion related to

heart rate and blood lactate during arm and leg exercise. European Journal o f Applied

Physiology and Occupational Psychology. 65. 679-685.

Borg, G. A., & Linderhohn, H. (1970). Exercise performance and perceiyed

exertion in patients with coronary insufficiency, arterial hypertension and yasoregulatory

asthenia. Acta Medicine Scandjyian, 187. 17-26.

Borg, G. A., & Noble, B. J. (1974). Perceiyed exertion. In J. Vfilmore (Ed.),

Exercise and Sport Science Reyiews (pp. 131-53). New York: Academic Press.

Borg, G. A., & Ottoson, D., eds. (1986). The Perception o f Exertion in Physical

Work. London: MacMillaiL

Bouchard, C., Shephard, R. J., & Stephens, T., eds. (1994). Physical Actiyity.

Fitness, and Health: International Proceedings and Consensus Statement Champaign,

111: Human Kinetics.

Boutcher, S., & Trenske, M. (1990). The effects o f sensory depriyation and music

on perceived exertion and affect during exercise. Journal o f Sport and Exercise

Psychology. 12. 167-176.

Bruce, R, A. (1972). Multistage treadmill tests o f maximal and submaximal

exercise. In American Heart Association, Exercise Testing and Training o f Apparently

Healthy Indiyiduals: A Handbook for Physicians (pp. 32-33). New York: American Heart

Association.


129

Carlton, R . L., & Rhodes, E. C. (1985). A critical review o f the literature on

ratings scales for perceived exertion. Sports Medicine. 2. 198-222.

Casperson C. J., Powell K. E., & Christenson G. M. (1985). Physical activity,

exercise and physical fitness: Definitions and distinctions for health-related research.

Public Health Reports. 100. 126-131.

Ceci, R., & Hassmen, P. (1991). Self-monitored exercise at three different RPE

intensities in treadmill vs field running. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise.

23, 732-738.

Chow, J. R-, & Wilmore, J. H. (1984). The regulation of exercise intensity by

ratings o f perceived exertion. Journal o f Cardiac Rehabilitation. 4. 382-387.

Cooper, K- H. (1977). The Aerobics Wav. New York: Bantam Books.

Debusk, R. P., Stenestrand, U., Sheehen, M., & Haskell, W. L. (1990). Training

effects o f long versus short bouts o f exercise in healthy subjects. American Journal o f

Cardiology. 65. 1010-1013.

Dishman, R. K. (1986). Mental health. In V. Seefold (Ed.), Physical activity and

well-being (pp. 304-341). Reston, VA: American Association for Health, Physical

Education, Recreation and Dance.

Dishman, R. K. (1987). Exercise adherence. In W. P. Morgan & S. N. Goldston

(Eds.), Exercise and Mental Health (pp. 57-83). N ew York: Hemisphere.

Dishman, R. K., Patton, R. W., Smith, J., Weinberg, R , & Jackson, A. (1987).

Using perceived exertion to prescribe and monitor exercise training heart rate.

International Journal o f Sports Medicine. 8. 208-213.


130

Durstine, L., & Pate, R. (1988). Cardiorespiratory responses to acute exercise. In

S. N . Blair, et al. (Eds.), American College o f Sports Medicine. Resource m anual for

guidelines for exercise testing and prescription (pp. 48-54). Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.

Dwyer, G. B., Whaley, M. H., & Kaminsky, L. A. (1992). Frequency o f RPE

inquires effects the RPE:HR relationship during graded exercise testing. Journal o f

Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation. 12. 360.

Ekblom, B., & Goldbarg, A. N. (1971). The influence o f physical training and

other fectors on the subjective rating o f perceived exertion. Acta Phvsiologica

Scandinavica. 83. 399-406.

Eston, R. G., Davies, B. L., & Williams, J. G. (1987). Use o f perceived effort

ratings to control exercise intensity in young health adults. European Journal o f Applied

Physiology. 56. 222-224.

Eston, R. G., & Williams, J. G. (1988). Reliability o f ratings o f perceived effort

regulation o f exercise intensity. British Journal o f Sports Medicine. 22. 153-155.

Fillingim, R. B., Roth, D. L., & Haley, W. E. (1989). The effects o f distraction on

the perception o f exercise-induced symptoms. Journal o f Psychosomatic Research. 33

(2), 241-248.

Franklin, B. A. (1978). Motivating and educating adults to exercise. Journal o f

Physical Education and Recreation. 49 (6). 13-17.

Gettman, L. R. (1993). Fitness Testing. In J. L. Durstine et al. (Eds.), ACSM’s

Resource Manual for Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription (2“** ed.). (pp.

229-246). Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.


131

Glass, S. C., Knowlton, R. G., & Becque, M. D. (1992). Accuracy o f RPE from

graded exercise to establish exercise training intensity. Medicine and Science in Sports

and Exercise. 24 (11). 1303-1307.

Hellerstein, H. K., & Franklin, B. A. (1984). Exercise testing and prescription. In

N. K. Wenger and H. K. Hellerstein (Eds.), Rehabilitation o f the Coronary Patient (2™*

ed). (pp. 197-284). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Hickson, R. C., Foster, C., Pollock, M. L., Galassi, T. M., & Rich, S. (1985).

Reduced training intensities and loss of aerobic power, endurance, and cardiac growth.

Journal o f Applied Physiology. 58. 492-499.

Holly, R. G., & Shaffiath, J. D. (1998) Cardiorespiratory endurance. In J.L.

Roitman et al. (Eds.). ACSM’s Resource Manual for Guidelines for Exercise Testing and

Prescription (3"* ed.). (pp. 437-447). Baltimore:Williams & Wilkins.

Howley, E. T., & Franks, B. D. (1992). Health and Fitness Instructor’s Handbook

(2"^ ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hull, G. W., & Potteiger, J. A. (1999). Regulation o f exercise intensity using

ratings o f perceived exertion during passive visual distraction. Perceptual and Motor

Skills. 89. 684-694.

Karageorghis, C., & Terry, P C . (1997). The psychophysical effects o f music in

sport and exercise: a review. Journal o f Sport Behavior. 20. 54-68.

Karvonen, J., & Vuorimaa, T. (1988). Heart rate and exercise intensity during

sports activities: Practical application. Sports Medicine. 5. 303-312.

Kilbom, A., Hartley, L., Saltin, B., Bjure, J., Grimby, G., & Astrand, I. (1969).

Physical training in sedentary middle-aged and older men. Scandinavian Journal o f

Clinical and Laboratory Investigation. 24. 315-322.


132

Knapp, D. (1988). Behavior management techniques and exercise promotion. In

R. K. Dishman (Ed.), Exercise Adherence—It’s Impact on Public Health (pp. 203-235).

Champaign, 111: Human Kinetics.

Kravitz, L., Robergs, R. A., and Heyward, V. H. (1996). Are all exercise models

equal? Idea Today. 4. 51-58.

Martin, J. E., & Dubbert, P. M. (1982). Exercise applications and promotion in

behavioral medicine: Current status and future directions. Journal o f Counseling and

Clinical Psychology. 50 (6). 1004-1017.

McAuIey, E, & Rudolph, D. (1995). Physical activity, aging, and psychological

well-being. Journal o f Aging and Physical Activity. 3. 67-96.

Mihevic, P. M. (1983). Cardiovascular fitness and the psychophysics o f

perceived exertion. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 54. 239-246.

Morgan, W. P. (1973). Psychological factors influencing perceived exertion.

Medicine and Science in Sports. 5. 97-103.

Morgan, W.P., & Borg, G. V. (1976). Perception o f eflbrt in the prescription o f

physical activity. In T. Nelson (Ed.), Mental health and emotional aspects o f sports

(pp. 126-129). Chicago: American Medical Association.

Morgan, W. P., Horstman, D. J., Cymerman, A., & Stokes, J. (1983). Facilitation

o f physical performance by means o f a cognitive strategy. Cognitive Therapy and

Research. 7. 251-264.

Morgan, W. P., & Pollock, M. L. (1977). Psychological characteristics o f the

elite distance runner. Annual New York Academic Science. 301. 382-403.


133

Morris, J. N ., Clayton, D. G., Everitt, M. G., Semmence, A. M., & Burgess, E. H.

(1990). Exercise in leisure time: coronary attack and death rates. British Heart JoumaL

63, 325-334.

Myles, W. S., & Maclean, D. (1986). A conçarison o f responseand a production

protocols for assessing perceived exertion. European Journal o f Applied Phvsiologv and

Occupational Phvsioloev. 55. 585-587.

Nethery, V. M., Harmer, P. A., & Taaflfe, D. R. (1991). Sensory mediation o f

perceived exertion during submaximal exercise. Journal o f Human Movement

Studies. 20. 201-211.

Nielsen, B., Savard, G., Richter, E. A., Hayoneaves, M., & Saltin, B. (1990).

Muscle blood flow and muscle metabolism during exercise and heat stress. Journal o f

Applied Phvsioloev. 69. 1040-1046.

Nisbett, R. E., & Valins, S. (1971). Perceiving the causes of one’s own behavior.

Morristown. New Jersey: General Learning Press.

Noble, B., & Robertson, R. J. (1996). Perceived exertion. Champaign, 111.:

Human Kinetics.

Oldridge, N. B. (1982). Compliance with intervention and rehabilitation exercise

programs-A review. Preventive Medicine. 11. 56-70.

Paffenbarger, R. S. Jr., Hyde, R. T., ) ^ g , A. L., 8c Steinmetz, C. H. (1984). A

natural history o f athleticism and cardiovascular health. Journal o f the American Medical

Association. 252. 491-495.

Pandol^ K. B. (1983). Advances in the study and application o f perceived

exertion. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews. 11. 118-158.


134

PandolL K. B., Bülings, D. G., Drolet, L. L., Pimentai, N. A., & Sawka, M. N.

(1984). Differentiated ratings o f perceived exertion and various physiological responses

during prolonged upper and lower body exercise. European Journal o f Applied

Phvsioloev and Occupational Phvsioloev. S3. 5-11.

Pandolf K. B., Burse, R. L., & Goldman, R. F. (1975). Differentiated ratings o f

perceived exertion during physical conditioning o f older individuals using legweight

loading. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 40. 563-574.

Pate, R. R., Pratt, M., Blair, S. N., Haskell, W.L., Macera, C. A., Bouchard, C.,

Buchner, D., Ettinger, W., Heath, G. W., & King, A. C. (1995). Physical activity and

public health: A recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

and the American College o f Sports Medicine. Journal o f American Medical Association.

243. 402-407.

Pennebaker, J. W., & Lightner, J. M. (1980). Competition o f internal and external

information, in an exercise setting. Journal o f Personalitv and Social Psvcholoev. 39,

165-174.

Pivamik, J. M., Grafiier, T. R., & Elkins, E. S. (1988). Metabolic,

thermoregulatory, and psychophysiological responses during arm and leg exercise.

Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 20. 1-5.

Plante, T. G., & Rodin, J. (1990). Physical fitness and enhanced psychological

health. Current Psvchologv: Research and Reviews. 9. 3-24.

Pollock, M. L., Broida, J., Kendrick, Z., Miller, H. S., Janeway, R , & Linnerud,

A. (1972). Effects o f training two days per week at different intensities on middle-aged

men. Medicine and Science and Sports. 4. 192-197.


135

PoUock, M. L. (1988). Prescribing exercise for fitness and adherence. In R. K.

Dishman (Ed.), Exercise Adherence (pp. 259-277). Champaign, 111.: Human Kinetics.

Pollock, M. L., Gaesser, G. A., Butcher, J D., Després, J. P., Dishman, R. K.,

Franklin, B. A., & Garber, C. E. (1998). The recommended quantity and quality o f

exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness, and

flexibility in healthy adults. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 30 (6), 975-

991.

Pollock, M. L., Jackson, A. S., & Foster, C. (1986). The use o f the perception

scale for exercise prescription. In G. A. Borg, & D. Ottoson (Eds.), The Perception o f

Exertion in Phvsical Work (pp. 161 — 176). London: MacMillan.

Pollock, M. L., Wilmore, J. H., & Fox, S. M. (1984). Exercise in health and

disease—Evaluation and prescription for prevention and rehabilitation. Philadelphia:

W.B. Saunders.

Powell, K. E., Thompson, P. D., Caspersen, C. J., & Kendrick, J. S., (1987).

Physical activity and the incidence of coronary heart disease. Annual Review o f Public

Health. 8. 253-287.

Powers, S. K., & Howley, E. T. (1996). Exercise Phvsioloev—Theory and

Application to Fitness and Performance (3̂** ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rejeski, J. W. (1981). The perception o f exertion: a social psychophysiological

integration. Journal o f Sport Psvchologv. 9. 305-320.

Rejeski, J. W. (1985). Perceived exertion: an active or a passive process? Journal

o f Sport Psvcholoev. 7. 371-378.


136

Rejeski, J. W., & Ribisl, P. M. (1980). Expected task duration and perceived

effort: an attributional analysis. Tournai o f Sport Psvchologv. 2. 227-236.

Robergs, R. A., Bereket, S., & Knight, M. A. (1998). Video-assisted cycling

alters perception o f effort and increases self-selected exercise intensity. Perceptual and

Motor Skills. 86. 915-927.

Robertson, R. J., Gillespie, R. L., McCarthy, J., & Rose, K. D. (1979).

Differentiated perceptions of exertion Part 1 : Mode o f integration o f regional signals.

Perceptual and Motor Skills. 49. 683-689.

Robertson, R. J., & Noble, B. N. (1997). Perception o f physical exertion:

methods, mediators, and applications. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews. 25.

407-452.

Russell, W. D., & Weeks, D. L. (1994). Attentional style in ratings o f perceived

exertion during physical exercise. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 78, 779-783.

Smith, M. L., & Mitchell, J. H. (1993) Cardiorespiratory adaptations to exercise

training. In J. L. Durstine et al. (Eds.), ACSM’s Resource Manual for Guidelines for

Exercise Testing and Prescription (2“‘* ed.). (pp. 75-81). Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.

Smutok, M. A., Skrinar, G. S., 8c Pandolf K. B. (1980). Exercise intensity:

subjective regulation by perceived exertion by perceived exertion. Archives o f Phvsical

Medicine and Rehabilitation. 61. 569-574.

Snyder, E. E., & Spreitzer, E. A. (1974). Involvement in sports and psychological

well-being. International Journal o f Sports Psvcholoev. 5. 28-39.

Thomas, C. L (Ed.) (1997). Taber’s Cvclopedic Medical Dictionarv. (18* ed.).

Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis Company.


137

United States Department o f Health and Human Services. (1996). Phvsical

Activitv and Health: A Report o f the Surgeon General. Atlanta, Ga: U.S. Department o f

Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center

for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Viteri, J. E. (1994). The effects o f television viewing on the self-regulation o f

exercise intensitv. Unpublished master’s thesis, Springfield College, Massachusetts.

Weinberg, R. S., Smith, J., Jackson, A., & Gould, D. (1984). Effect o f

association, dissociation, and positive self-talk strategies on endurance performance.

Canadian Journal o f Applied Sport Psvchologv. 9, 25-32.

Whaley, M. H., & Kaminsly, L. A. (1998) Epidemiology o f physical activity,

physical fitness, and selected chronic diseases. In J. L. RoHman et al (Eds.). ACSM’s

Resource Manual for Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription (3"* ed.). (pp. 13-

26). Baltimore : Williams & Wilkins.

Whaley, M. H., Woodall, M. T., Kaminshy, L. A., & Emmett, J. D. (1997).

Reliability o f perceived exertion during graded exercise testing in apparently healthy

adults. Journal o f Cardiopulmonarv Rehabilitation. 17. 37- 42.

White, V. B., & Potteiger, J. A. (1996). Comparison o f passive sensory

simulations RPE during moderate intensity exercise. Perceptual and M otor Skills. 82.

819-885.

Wilmore, J. H. (1988). Design issues and alternatives in assessing physical

fitness among apparently healthy adults in a health examination survey o f the general

population. In T. F. Drury (Ed.), Assessing Phvsical Fitness and Activitv in General

Population Studies (pp. 107-140). Washington, DC: U.S. Public Health Service, National

Center for Health Statistics.


VITA

Graduate College University o f Nevada, Las Vegas

Wendee Ellen Kukuwich

Local address:P.O. Box 35134 Las Vegas, NV 89133

Degrees:Bachelor o f Science, 1997 University o f Nevada, Las Vegas

Thesis Title: Selection o f Exercise Intensity Using Perceptual Cues During Television Distraction

Thesis Examination Committee:Chairperson, Dr. John A. Mercer, Ph. D.Co-Chairperson, Dr. Lawrence A. Golding, Ph. D.Examining Committee Member, Dr. Richard D. Tandy, Ph. D. Examining Committee Member, Dr. John D. Massengale, Ph. D. Graduate Faculty Representative, Dr. William Johnson, Ph. D.

138


selection of exercise intensity using perceptual cues

Documents